The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Anish @ Pooppy, Ratheesh, Do. Do. and Sunil M.B.

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—Under challenge in this appeal is the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P. (MV) No. 256/05. The claim petition was filed by one Rajesh claiming a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation alleging that he sustained injuries while travelling by an auto rickshaw driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The 3rd respondent was the insured. Allegedly the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent who was driving the vehicle.

The claimant sustained injuries as the vehicle turned turtle. The appellant Insurance Company while admitting the policy of the offending vehicle had taken a contention that the 1st respondent was not holding a valid driving licence and badge to drive the vehicle which was a transport vehicle. In the memorandum of appeal the appellant alleges that in spite of the definite contention taken by them, the learned Tribunal did not give the appellant Insurance company the right to recover the amount of compensation from the registered owner/insured after effecting payment.

We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant. The argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel was not resisted at the bar by the respondents. We have also perused the impugned award.

From para 16 of the impugned award it can be seen that the appellant Insurance Company in order to substantiate their contention that the 1st respondent was not holding a valid driving licence and badge at the time of the accident had filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking a direction against the 3rd respondent to produce the driving licence and badge. That was allowed. But pursuant to the direction Ext.P3 which is the photostat copy of the driving licence was produced. That was not even properly attested, it is revealed. Ext.P3 would show that it was a licence to drive light motor vehicles only. Hence, this is a case in which the learned Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the driver and should have reserved the right of the appellant Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the third respondent/insured, or the 2nd respondent/registered owner after effecting payment. As the impugned award suffers from the said infirmity, we are of the view that the same has to be interfered with and the award has to be modified.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. While upholding the quantum of compensation awarded as well as the direction to the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation, we modify the award giving the appellant the right to recover the amount of compensation either from the 2nd respondent who is the registered owner or from the 3rd respondent who is the insured after effecting payment as there was a violation of one of the conditions of policy issued by the appellant Insurance Company. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.