(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to set aside the judgement and decree award dated 17-11-2025 passed in MCOP.No.220 of 2023 on the file of the MACT, Puducherry (II Addl.Dist.Court, Puducherry).

M. Jothiraman, J.

1. Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal aggrieved over the award passed in MCOP.No.220 of 2023 dated 17.11.2025 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry (II Additional District Court), Puducherry.

2. According to the claimants, who are the parents and sister of the deceased Velmurugan, on 13.02.2023 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased went as a pillion rider along with his friend Pavadairayan, in a Pulsar Motorcyle bearing Reg.No.PY 01 CB 0607 after attending the family function in Tindivanam. While they were returning back to his friends home town in Sandaipudukuppam, at Tenkodipakkam at the end of the over bridge descent, near the junction, Tindivanam to Puducherry, at that time, the 1st respondent’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 70 AD 1271, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased along with his friend fell down on the road. The said Velmurugan sustained injuries over his body. Due to the injuries, the deceased died. According to them, the deceased was working as a Plumber and was earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day.

3. The appellant Insurance Company / 2nd respondent therein has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.PY 01 CB 0607, in which the deceased was riding as a pillion rider. The driver of the said two wheeler drove the vehicle without wearing any helmet. The tractor of the 1st respondent therein was not used for the purpose of permit at the time of the alleged accident. The 1st respondent vehicle therein was driven by the person, who do not have a valid driving licence to drive the tractor. Therefore, the 2nd respondent therein would not be liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. On the side of the claimants, the 1st claimant / Thirunavukurassu was examined as PW1 and one Mohandoss was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, one Arun was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. Upon considering the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that as per the Final Report- Ex.P13, it reveals that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent Tractor driver.

5. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, has stated that the deceased was a pillion rider. It is also found that as per Ex.P11- Form AIR of the motorcycle reveals that the damage was caused to the two wheeler and that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the tractor driver. As per Ex.P12 – Form AIR of the Tractor, the Tractor Driver Lakshmipathy did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. Further, the deceased is a third party and the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver and so the appellant / 2nd respondent therein, with whom the vehicle was insured, shall be liable to pay compensation and recover the same from the 1st respondent / owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:



Being aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that infact the victim was negligent and he was driving the bike without wearing helmet and if he was careful and wore helmet, he could be survived with injuries. The Tribunal failed to consider the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect on 01.04.2022 expressly omitting the provision relating to Pay and Recovery and erroneously directed to Pay and Recover, despite cogent evidence of a breach of policy conditions.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant would submit that PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, categorically deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver. The Appellant Insurance Company did not take any steps to examine the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and did not produce any document to show that the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. We have considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record.

9. According to the claimants, the deceased Veeramani – who is the pillion rider in the bike driven by his friend Pavadarayan in a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN PY 01 CB 0607, when they were going on the National Highways at Tenkodipakkam at the end of the overbridge descent, near the junction Tindivanam to Puducherry, at that time, the 1st respondent’s vehicle Tractor was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle on the right side severely. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, categorically deposed about the manner of accident and he has deposed that the 1st respondent / owner of the Tractor driver, drover the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner against the motorcycle on the right side. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased along with his friend fell down on the road.

10. It is to be noted that proceedings before the Tribunal is summary in nature and it is suffice to consider whether there is preponderance of probabilities as to the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence cannot be termed as perverse. It is seen from records that one Dhandapal, father of Pavadarayan has given a complaint against the tractor driver stating that the deceased was the rider of the two wheeler and one Pavadarayan was the pillion rider, but the evidence of PW1 is contrary to the evidence of Ex.P1-FIR. As per Ex.P13- Final Report, the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver. Though the appellant has contended that the deceased was negligent and he was riding the bike even without wearing helmet at the time of accident, in order to prove the case of the appellant Insurance Company, they have not examined any witness to disprove the manner of accident. The owner of the Tractor / 1st respondent therein did not appear before the Tribunal and remained set exparte. PW2, who is an eye witness has stated that the deceased was a pillion order and as per Ex.P11 – Form AIR, the damage was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor Driver.

11. It is seen from records that Ex.P3 is the Insurance Policy was valid from 20.11.2022 till 21.11.2023 and was in force at the time of accident. As per Ex.P12-Form AIR, the Tractor Driver, namely Lakshmipathy did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. The appellant also contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle without wearing helmet at the time of accident. If he was careful and wore helmet, he could have survived injuries.

12. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Nithya and Ors. V. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1508, wherein it has been stated that when the Tribunal did not even frame an issue on contributory negligence, the appellate Court ought not to have considered that argument in order to reduce the compensation awarded. Even otherwise, the Insurance Company did not lead evidence on this aspect nor insisted for framing an issue. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, making bald assertions in the counter affidavit cannot be taken into account for fixing contributory negligence on the side of the deceased with regard to non-wearing of helmet.

13. It is relevant to note that driving a vehicle without a driving licence would amount to violation of the policy condition, but the deceased is a 3rd party and the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor owned by the 1st respondent therein. The 2nd respondent therein / Insurance Company, with whom the vehicle was insured, shall be liable to pay compensation to the claimant and it is relevant to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

14. According to the appellant, the Tribunal has failed to consider the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect on 01.04.2022, expressly omitting the provisions relating to Pay and Recover. It is relevant to mention that with regard to the issue of pay and recovery, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard, Thanjavur v. Mariyapushpam and Others [01.06.2026 in CMA(MD) Nos.517 of 2025], in the penultimate paragraph has observed as under:

               “74.We are fortified in taking this view since even under the unamended Form 51, Serial Nos 10 and 11 stated that the policy does not cover use for -- (a) organized racing, or (b) speed testing and (c) use for hire or reward which were all permissible defences under Section 149(2) (a)(i)(a) and 149(2)(a)(i)(b). However, even under the regime which existed prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 in all such cases also the insurer was first bound to satisfy the claim of the third party under the award and then proceed to recover the same from the insurer. Consequently, this contention also fails.

               CONCLUSION

               75.For the reasons stated above, we hold and declare that:

               a. The deletion of the proviso to Section 149(4) and Section 149(5) in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to the amendment by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 32 of 2019), does not have the effect of obliterating the statutory duty of the insurer to pay the claims made under an award or decree in respect of liability covered under a policy of insurance.

               b. The duty vis-à-vis a third party is statutory in character and flows from Section 150(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by Act 32 of 2019, and remains unhindered by the fact that the insurance company has succeeded in establishing a contractual defense permitted under Section 150(2).

               c. In the event the insurance company succeeds in establishing a defense under Section 150(2), the insurer will stand absolved from its contractual liability vis-à-vis the insured. Consequently, the insurer, after satisfying its statutory liability under Section 150(1) can proceed to recover the sum so paid from the insured. The insurance company can proceed to recover the same in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 110 (x) of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297.

               d. Conversely, if the insurance company does not succeed in establishing a defense under Section 150(2) the burden to meet the entire claim will fall on the insurer by virtue of Section 147(2) as amended by Act 32 of 2019, and Rule 2 of the Third-Party Insurance (Base Premium and Liability) Rules, 2022 which provides for unlimited liability in respect of third party insurance under Chapter XI of the Act.”

By applying the ratio laid down in the above said judgment, when the appellant Insurance Company, with whom the vehicle was insured, shall be liable to pay compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the 1st respondent / owner of the offending vehicle, since the 1st respondent vehicle has caused accident. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.

15. According to the claimant, the deceased was aged 18 years at the time of accident. As per Ex.P14 – Postmortem Certificate, the age of the deceased was stated as 18 years and doing plumbing work earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.16,678/- and considering the future prospects at 40%, applying the Multiplier 12 as per the age of the deceased at the time of accident, deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, since the deceased has left behind his parents and by applying the ratio laid down in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC)] and National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)], has arrived Rs.25,21,584/- towards Loss of Dependency, which this Court finds to be just and fair. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are also appears to be just and fair and does not warrant any interference. There is no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the award dated 17.11.2025 in MCOP.No.220 of 2023, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry (II Additional District Court), Puducherry. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.