(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the order dated 14.08.2025 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.8081 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed the above appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.8081 of 2018, dated 14.08.2025, whereby, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant, who is the victim in the accident occurred on 17.11.2018.

2. Since no adverse order has been passed against the respondents in this appeal, notice to the respondents in this appeal is dispensed with by this Court.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is as follows:

On 17.11.2018 at about 04.00 A.M., while the claimant was a pillion rider in a Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AR-3433, which was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent/insurance company, at Ponneri High Road, opposite Akka Hotel, Echankuzhi, Chennai – 103, and at that time the rider of the Motor Cycle is drove in a rash and negligent manner and dash against the centre median of the road, thereby, he sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.8081 of 2018 claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 16 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P16. On the side of the Insurance Company, they have examined 2 witnesses viz., R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked 5 documents viz., Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. Apart from that, the Disability Certificate of the 1st respondent/petitioner was marked as Court Document viz., Ex.C.1. After adjudication, the Tribunal had partly allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.36,22,160/- as compensation, with an interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., by ordering pay and recovery. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the appellant/insurance company has let in evidence through R.W.2, the official from Regional Transport Office, Tiruvallur, to show that the driver of the motorcycle did not possess valid driving licence and thereby, he breached the policy conditions. Therefore, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant and thereby, the pay and recovery ordered by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable, which requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

7. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The main grievance of the appellant is with regard to the pay and recovery ordered by the Tribunal. It is claimed by the appellant-insurance company that at the time of accident, the driver of the motorcycle did not possess valid driving licence and thereby, he breached the policy conditions. Without considering the said aspect, even though the Tribunal has held that due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, the Tribunal has wrongly ordered for pay and recovery, and in this regard, necessary interference is warranted.

8. In order to prove the above contentions, the appellant examined R.W.2, the official from Regional Transport Office, Tiruvallur, since the driver of the motorcycle appears to be residing in the jurisdiction of the said RTO, and upon perusal of the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and the documents viz., Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5, it is seen that no license was issued to the driver of the motorcycle. To counter this, the claimant did not let in any evidence before the Tribunal. Though the licence is being issued by the concerned Regional Transport Officer, the insurance company had examined R.W.2/the official from RTO, Tiruvallur, who is not a sufficient witness to hold that the driver of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, even though the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle, the Tribunal has ordered for pay and recovery, since the claimant is a third party and he cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the said finding and accordingly, the same is confirmed.

9. Now, coming to the question of compensation, it is claimed by the 1st respondent/claimant that at the time of accident, he was doing business as Private Company and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. He is the pillion rider in the motorcycle. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.31,30,176/- towards permanent disability and loss of earning, by taking into consideration the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board viz., Ex.C.1, wherein it is reported that the 1st respondent/claimant has sustained with “80%” of “Locomotor” disability, which cannot be termed as high or excessive. Further, by considering all the materials available on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the other heads, which also cannot be termed as high or excessive. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not require any interference. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, and hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.8081 of 2018, dated 14.08.2025. The Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.8081 of 2018 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, is any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the same directly to bank account of the 1st respondent/claimant, through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. Further, the appellant is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the 2nd respondent as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.