PRAYER :This Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 21.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.287 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
JUDGMENT
1. Both the CMAs since arose out of same award passed by the Tribunal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. CMA.No.1766 of 2009 has been filed by the Insurance Company as against the award of the Tribunal. CMA.No.611 of 2009 has been filed by the injured, asking more compensation.
3. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the driver of the offending vehicle himself has admitted in the Magistrate's Court. At the time of accident he was not having proper driving licence. In such circumstances the Tribunal ought not to have directed the Company to pay the amount to the injured and recover it from the insured.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant would submit that under the Motor Vehicles Act there is compulsory scheme of insurance. In so far as, the 3rd party is concerned, the Insurance Company is bound to pay him and recover it from the vehicle owner. That is how the Tribunal has rightly passed the pay and recovery order. The injured had suffered grievous injury, but less compensation was granted to him. No compensation was granted for expenses incurred towards transportation. Very less amount has been granted for extra nourishment food expenses.
5. On 28.12.2005, Anbalagan while bicycling on the Kangeyam main road, the moped belonging to the first respondent insured, with the appellant in CMA.No.1766 of 2009 came driven in a rash and negligent manner and knocked him down. Anbalagan sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal awarded him totally Rs.1,21,000/- as compensation.
6. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company established that at the time when the accident took place, the rider of the moped was not possessing a driving license. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover it from the vehicle owner.
7. The problem of persons driving the vehicle with fake licence, learners licence or no licence echoed in the Court for some time. Now it was held that on account of this policy violation under compulsory scheme of insurance. The Nationalised Insurance Company shall pay the amount to the affected third party and recover it from the owner of offending vehicle.
8. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune V. Manimozhi and others (2010 (3) TLNJ 631 (Civil)) it was held that so far as, 3rd party is concerned, in view of the scheme compulsory insurance, he should not be left or lurch and he cannot run after the vehicle owner. It is very difficult to collect single pie from them. In this regard Oriental Insurance Company V. Brij Mohan and others (2007 (7) Scale 753) is also in favour of the injured.
9. The injured Anbalagan is not a party to the contract of Insurance between the Company and the vehicle owner. He is a 3rd party, innocent road user. He cannot be expected to walk or ride a vehicle on the road verifying whether the rider of the offending vehicle holds effective and valid driving licence, if not simply run away from the road. That is how, the compulsory scheme of risk coverage has been envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act. So, the pay and recovery order passed by the Tribunal is correct.
10. PW2 Doctor Sengottaiyan determined the disability at 18% and issued Ex.P16 disability certificate, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.40,000/- towards disability. It is neither low nor very high.
11. The injured sustained grievous injuries. He was under treatment for a considerable time. The Tribunal has awarded him only Rs.5,000/- towards nutritious food expenses. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The injured had to make lot of to and fro trips from his house to hospital and somebody also has to accompany him. He should have spent considerable amount for transportation. But no amount has been granted. Considering the facts and circumstances, for transportation charges, we award him Rs.5,000/-. In other aspects, we are not interfering with the award of the Tribunal.
12. In the result, CMA.No.611 of 2009 is allowed in part the total compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,31,000/- with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. CMA.No.1766 of 2009 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. In both the appeals no costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.