1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.299 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd K.N.A. Complex I Floor 12-G Ram Nagar, Bye pass Road Madurai District. .. Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1.Selvi .. Respondent/Petitioner 2.Rengan .. Respondent/1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 18.11.2010 passed in MCOP No.256 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For R – 1 : Mr.M.Sudhagar Nagaraj For R – 2 : No appearance JUDGMENT Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the award dated 18.11.2010 passed in MCOP No.256 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed MCOP No.256 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli praying to pass an award of Rs.2,00,000/- wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. In the petition it is averred that on 24.01.2006 at about 11.00 am the petitioner has stood in Irumboorthipatti bus stop so as to board a bus. At that time the driver of the first respondent has driven the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-47-L-8196 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and due to accident the petitioner has sustained injury. The vehicle which caused accident has been insured with the second respondent and therefore, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is averred that the entire accident has happened only due to negligence on the part of the petitioner. The driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid licence at the time of accident. The quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,12,130/-. Against the liability fixed upon the second respondent, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has repeatedly contended that the accident has happened on 24.01.2006 and at the time of accident the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid licence and in fact the second respondent has taken much efforts so as to secure the driver of the first respondent for the purpose of giving evidence with regard to his licence. But all his attempts have become futile and further on the side of the appellant/second respondent necessary evidence has been put forth so as to prove that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid licence on the date of accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by eschewing the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant/second respondent has erroneously fixed liability upon the appellant/second respondent and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that in the instant case positive evidence has been let in so as to prove that the driver of the first respondent has possessed of valid licence on the date of accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after analysing the available evidence on record has rightly fixed liability upon the appellant/second respondent and therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal need not be interfered with. 8. It is an admitted fact that the accident has happened on 24.01.2006. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that on the date of accident, the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid licence. Since a plea has been taken to the effect that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid licence on the date of accident, the entire burden lies upon the appellant/second respondent to prove the same. 9. On the side of the appellant/second respondent two witnesses have been examined as RWs.1 and 2. RW1 is nothing but an officer of the second respondent. RW2 is nothing but the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector. Both RWs.1 and 2 have stated in their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 evidence that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid licence on the date of accident. 10. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the entire evidence given by RW1. During the course of cross examination he has clearly admitted that even though the driver of the first respondent has been charged for the offence of not having valid licence, he has not been convicted under the said charge. Therefore, it goes without saying that the concerned criminal Court after analysing the charges framed against the driver of the first respondent has clearly found that the driver of the first respondent is not guilty for the alleged offence of not having valid and proper licence. Therefore, the evidence given by RW1 has completely debilitated the main defence taken on the side of the appellant/second respondent. Further no effective steps have been taken so as to prove that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid licence. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the main attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent cannot be accepted. 11. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli after evaluating the evidence available on record has rightly fixed the liability upon the appellant /second respondent. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any force in the contention urged on the side of the appellant/second respondent. 12. On the side of the appellant/second respondent no attack has been made with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost and the award passed in MCOP No.256 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli is confirmed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Third Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli +1cc to Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan, Advocate, Sr.No.22029 C.M.A(MD)No.299 of 2011 07.07.2011 mj SMA/5.8.2011/3C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/