1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.506 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 United India Insurance Company Limited, 78, Kamarajar Salai,Cauvery Nagar, Kulithalai Post,Karur District. .. Appellant Vs. 1.Selvaraj 2.Alaguraj .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 11.08.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Ramachandran For Respondent .. Mr.T.M.Hariharan No.1 For Respondent .. No appearance No.2 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 11.08.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant and the remaining respondent have been shown as respondents. 3. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,66,570/- by way of compensation and thereby directed the second respondent to pay the same on behalf of the first respondent. With regard to liability, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has contended that the specific stand taken on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid driving license at the time of accident and to that effect oral evidence has been let in to certain extent, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously fixed liability upon the appellant/ second respondent and therefore the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The consistent case of the first respondent/petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent (owner of the vehicle), the entire accident has happened. Even prior to filing of the present petition, the appellant/second respondent has chosen to give a legal notice to the petitioner as well as driver of the first respondent (owner of the vehicle) whereby both of them have been directed to produce their driving license. Even after receipt of the same, they have not produced the same. 6. In the counter filed on the side of the appellant/second respondent, it has been specifically stated that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid driving license at the time of accident. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has failed to frame a question as to whether the driver of the first respondent has possessed of valid driving license at the time of accident? In the instant case, even the first respondent has not chosen to give any oral evidence. Under the said circumstances, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the above aspect in a proper perspective manner. Without considering the fact that as to whether the driver of the first respondent has possessed of valid driving license or not it is highly impossible on the part of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to fix liability upon the appellant/second respondent. Therefore in the instant case, the Court has to look into as to whether the driver of the first respondent has possessed of valid driving license on the date of accident? But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not framed a proper question to that effect and even without getting proper evidence, the entire liability has been fixed upon the appellant/second respondent. Therefore viewing from any angle, the award in question is liable to be set aside. 7. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai is set aside and M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2009 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai. The appellant/ second respondent is directed to examine the person concerned for the purpose of proving that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid driving license at the time of accident. The first respondent/petitioner is also at liberty to adduce additional evidence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai is directed to dispose of M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2009 before the end of December, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court,Kulithalai. +1cc to Mr.T.M.Hariharan, Advocate SR.No.31203 smn C.M.A(MD)No.506 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 13.09.2011 smn PA/27.09.2011/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/