LACHURAM S/O CHOTUDAS Vs. ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent no.1.

(2.) The appellant was one of the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). It was the case of the claimant that on 19.3.2007, when the claimant was riding his motor cycle with a pillion rider, who was the other claimant before the MACT and travelling from Raichur to Alampadu and when they neared the land of one Narsangowda, a goods tempo coming from opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, had crashed into the motor cycle of the claimants resulting in both of them being thrown off the vehicle and suffering injuries. They were hosptialised and they had to be taken from a hospital at Raichur to a hospital at Hyderabad. The claimant was an inpatient for a period of eight days and had incurred a large expenditure towards medical treatment and other follow up. He was aged about 41 at the time of the accident and was a Stone Fitter and was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore, laid a claim for compensation before the MACT.

(3.) The matter was contested by the insurance company denying that there was any negligence on the part of the tempo and contending that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of the claimant himself and the gravity of the injuries sustained or the expenses said to have been incurred were all disputed, including the age, avocation and his earnings and that the liability of the insurer would arise only if there was no violation of the terms of the policy. In the case on hand, it was seen that the goods vehicle which was insured by the respondent - insurer was a goods carrying three wheeler and therefore was a transport vehicle and the driver was holding a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle and was therefore not authorised to drive a transport vehicle unless the licence was duly endorsed in that regard and in the absence of a valid licence held by the driver, the indemnity offered by the insurer cannot be invoked and therefore sought to negate the liability. The said contention has been upheld by the Tribunal and though compensation has been awarded in a sum of Rs.1,44,112/- under the several heads, the liability has been fastened on the owner of the vehicle. It is that which is sought to be primarily questioned while also seeking enhancement of compensation.