Judgment 1. The appellant/1st respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.592 of 2005, against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.489 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, Kumbakonam. 2. The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.90,607/- from the respondents for the severe charges incurred for repairing the car, bearing registration No.TN-51Y-0939 driven by the (deceased) Ravichandran, which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the (deceased) Ravichandran was working as a driver of his rental car and earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as salary and getting a daily batta of Rs.50/- to Rs.100/-and that on 12.04.2002, at about 11.00 p.m., when the (deceased) Ravichandran was driving the petitioner's Ambassador car bearing registration No.TN-51Y-0939 from Neyyal Village towards Kumbakonam on the Thanjavur to Kumbakonam road and when the car was opposite the St. Marry Matriculation School near Pasupathy Kovil, from east towards west, the 1st respondent's TNSTC bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Ambassador car and caused the accident. Most of the occupants of the car who had travelled as passengers were injured and the driver Ravichandran also sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the insurer of his car and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, Kumbakonam, respectively. 3. In the same accident, another claim in M.C.O.P.No.456 of 2003, has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, Ravichandran, who was the driver of the said Ambassador car against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents who are the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, the owner of the Ambassador Car i.e., the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 and the insurer of the car namely New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagapattinam. Both the claims were taken up for a joint trial and common evidence was recorded and common judgment was delivered. 4. The 1st respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner's Ambassador car bearing registration No.TN-51Y-0939 had been insured with them. Both the claims were taken up for a joint trial and common evidence was recorded and common judgment was delivered. 4. The 1st respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner's Ambassador car bearing registration No.TN-51Y-0939 had been insured with them. However, the averments in the claim that the driver of the said car had a valid driving licence to drive the car was denied. It was submitted that as the charge sheet had been filed only as against the driver of the 2nd respondent's TNSTC bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947 and as the driver of the Ambassador car did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the 1st respondent could be held liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The 2nd respondent in his counter has submitted that on 12.04.2002 at about 11.00 p.m., the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947 had driven the bus in a careful and cautious manner from Kumbakonam towards Thanjavur and that the ambassador car bearing registration No.TN-51Y-0939, coming in the opposite direction from Neyyal Village towards Kumbakonam and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had taken his car over the Jellies stacked on the left side of the road, due to which he had lost control of the car, which had then come in front of the bus and dashed against it. It was submitted that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the car driver and as such only the 1st respondent can be held liable to pay damages for the said car. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the car had a valid driving licence to driver the car at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondents bus driver or was it caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the ambassador car?; (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation for the damages of his car?. 7. On the petitioners side, five witnesses were examined. 7. On the petitioners side, five witnesses were examined. The 1st petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.456 of 2003 namely Subbulakshmi the wife of the deceased Ravichandran was examined as PW.1. One Saral Elizabath, who was the passenger in the Ambassador car and an eyewitness was examined as PW.2. The owner of Janakam Travels, Kumbakonam, wherein the deceased driver of the Ambassador car had worded as examined as PW.3. The petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 namely Saravanan was examined as PW.4 and PW.4 was the son of PW.1. The Surveyor of the insurance company namely Senthilkumar was examined as PW.5. One Gopal, who had done the Tinkering work in the damaged Ambassador car owned by the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 was examined as PW.6, Madasami, who was running a tinkering work shop in the name and style of "Martel Auto Garage" located at the Kumbakonam to Karaikal road was examined as PW.7. One Gopal, who had done the Tinkering work in the damaged Ambassador car owned by the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 was examined as PW.6, Madasami, who was running a tinkering work shop in the name and style of "Martel Auto Garage" located at the Kumbakonam to Karaikal road was examined as PW.7. On the petitioners side twenty eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P28 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 12.04.2002; Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report for Ambassador car dated 12.04.2002; Ex.P3-Motor vehicle Inspector's report for Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus dated 12.04.2002; Ex.P4-post mortem report; Ex.P5-death certificate dated 15.04.2002; Ex.P6-charge sheet submitted by Inspector of Ayyampettai police station at the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, dated 20.09.2002; Ex.P8-copy of insurance policy for car valid from 18.01.2002 to 11.06.2002; Ex.P9-salary certificate; Ex.P10-copy of RC book for Ambassador car dated 08.01.1993; Ex.P11-copy of permit for car dated 09.01.2002; Ex.P12-copy of insurance policy for car dated 18.01.2002; Ex.P13-driving licence of driver of Ambassador car dated 22.11.1998; Ex.P14-transfer certificate; showing transfer of ownership of car in the name of the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 dated 11.06.2002; Ex.P15-copy of letter sent by petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 to New India Insurance Company, Nagapattinam dated 10.06.2002; Ex.P16-acknowledgment card dated 12.06.2002; Ex.P17-copy of lawyers notice sent by counsel for petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 to the respondents dated 09.07.2002; Exs.P18 and P19-acknowledgment cards showing date of receipt of notice as 14.07.2002; Ex.P20-letter sent by New India Assurance Company to the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003 dated 25.07.2002; Ex.P21-photos showing damages caused to Ambassador car; Ex.P22-receipt for purchase of spare parts for Ambassador car dated 09.07.2002; Ex.P23-receipt issued by Vignesh tinker works for sale of cell in Ambassador car dated 10.06.2002; Ex.P24-receipt for service charges issued by modern auto garage, Kumbokaonam dated 09.07.2002; Exs.P25 and 26-labour charges receipt for loading and unloading ambassador car in lorry dated 15.04.2002; Ex.P27-Surveyor bill dated 21.06.2002; Ex.P28-receipt issued at Kala Studio, Ayyampettai for charges towards taking photos of damaged Ambassador car dated 05.05.2002. On the respondent's side, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus was examined as RW.1 and one Nallathambi, Administrative Officer, of the insurance company was examined as RW.2 and no documents were marked. 8. The conductor of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947, namely Anand had adduced evidence that on 12.04.2002. On the respondent's side, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus was examined as RW.1 and one Nallathambi, Administrative Officer, of the insurance company was examined as RW.2 and no documents were marked. 8. The conductor of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947, namely Anand had adduced evidence that on 12.04.2002. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-49N—0947 was taken out on its trip from Kumbakonam at 10.00 p.m., and that the driver of the bus had driven the bus towards Thanjavur. He deposed that he was the conductor in the said bus on the said day and that when the accident occurred opposite to St. Mary's Matriculation School near Ayyampettai Bus Stand, he was seated in the conductor's seat which was opposite to the drivers seat. He deposed that the bus was stopped at Anna Statue Bus Stand, order to facilitate passengers to board and alight and that the bus had been started to proceed towards Thanjavur. He deposed that there was a speed breaker situated at a distance of 100 ft from the bus stand and that another speed breaker was situated near the path towards Kandiyur and that when the bus had crossed these speed breakers, he had seen the Ambassador car coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner climb a top a stack of jellies placed on the right side of the road and that due to this the driver of the car had lost his control of car and brought the car in front of the bus and dashed against it. He deposed that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the ambassador car and as such the respondent bus Corporation cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. 9. PW.1, Subbulakshmi, the wife of the (deceased) driver of the Ambassador Car had also adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. However, on cross examination by the respondent transport Corporation, she had admitted that she is not an eyewitness of the accident. 10. 9. PW.1, Subbulakshmi, the wife of the (deceased) driver of the Ambassador Car had also adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. However, on cross examination by the respondent transport Corporation, she had admitted that she is not an eyewitness of the accident. 10. PW.2, Saral Elizabeth, the eyewitness of the accident had adduced evidence that on 12.04.2002, she was travelling in the ambassador car bearing registration No.TN-51Y-0939 from Nayyal Village towards Kumbakonam along with her husband Thyagarajam Gnanamuthu, Victoria Gnanam and Vijaya and when the car was proceeding on the Kumbakonam to Thanjavur road and nearing Pasupathi temple at around 11.00 p.m., and when the car was proceeding from west towards east on the road, the respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the car and caused the accident. She deposed that the driver of the car namely Ravichandran had died on the spot and that she and her husband and others sustained injuries. She deposed that they were admitted at the Thanjavur medical college hospital and that on next day the Ayyampettau police had recorded their evidence and lodged the F.I.R. She deposed that the accident had been caused by the negligence and rash driving by the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus. 11. PW.4, Saravanan, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003, had deposed that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's bus but had admitted that he was not an eyewitness of the accident. 12. 11. PW.4, Saravanan, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2003, had deposed that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's bus but had admitted that he was not an eyewitness of the accident. 12. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P1-F.I.R observed that the complaint regarding the accident had been given by PW.2, namely Saral Elizabeth and it had been stated in the F.I.R that at about 11.00 p.m., when the ambassador car was proceeding on the Thanjavur to Kumbakonam road from west towards east, near Pasupathi temple near Ayyampettai, the respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the right side of the Ambassador car and proceeded forward without stopping and that the driver of the car namely Ravichandran had died on the spot and that her husband had been thrown out of the car and received injuries on his forehead and right head joint. It was also stated that Vijaya, who had sat on the back side of the car had sustained injuries in her right cheek and top of her head and that the injured persons had been taken by car to Thanjavur medical college hospital for treatment. 13. From scrutiny of Exs.P2 and P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, it is seen that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanism failure of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus and the ambassador car. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and RW.1 and on scrutiny of exhibits P1, P2,P3,P7,P8,P10,P11,P12,P13 and P14, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-49N-0947. 14. On cross examination of PW.4, Saravanan. He had admitted that the validity period of the driving licence issued to the driver of the Ambassador car had expired on 26.12.2001. 15. RW.2, Nallathambi, the Administrative Office of the New India Assurance Company, Thanjavur Branch, had adduced evidence that the driver of the Ambassador car did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He had admitted that the validity period of the driving licence issued to the driver of the Ambassador car had expired on 26.12.2001. 15. RW.2, Nallathambi, the Administrative Office of the New India Assurance Company, Thanjavur Branch, had adduced evidence that the driver of the Ambassador car did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He also deposed that in two other claims filed by petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.629/2003 and 630/2003, in the same Court, it was decided that only the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus, should pay compensation to the petitioners and as such the claim as against the insurance company should be dismissed. On cross examination by the petitioners, he had deposed that prior to 26.12.2001, the driver of the ambassador Tourist car had been issued a 'Badge' to as per document marked as Ex.P13 and that on the date of accident, he did not have a valid driving licence. He deposed that he is not aware whether the driver i.e., deceased Ravichandran had given an application for renewal of licence to the concerned RTO authorities. 16. It was also argued on the respondents side, that the petitioner i.e., PW.4, could not seek compensation towards damages to car before the motor accident claims tribunal and that he has to get his remedy by filing his claim only before the City Civil Court, of the District Consumer Forum. It was also argued that claims can be filed under section 165 of Motor Vehicle Act, seeking damages of properties of 3rd parties and that as the owner of the Ambassador car had permitted his car to be driven by a driver, who did not have a valid driving licence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to compensation the damages towards car. However, it was admitted by the respondent that the policy issued for the Ambassador car is a comprehensive one and that it extends coverage for 3rd parties risk and damages to car. However, it was admitted by the respondent that the policy issued for the Ambassador car is a comprehensive one and that it extends coverage for 3rd parties risk and damages to car. However, the tribunal on holding that the insurance company did not lead any evidence to establish that the driver was disqualified from obtaining licence and holding that the expiry of period of licence and omission of driver to get the licence renewed cannot be a breach of condition of policy and opining that such licence can be renewed merely on payment of fine for delayed renewal opined and that a person already having a permanent licence cannot be considered a person unsuitable to drive the vehicle just because of non renewal of his licence held the insurance company liable to pay compensation towards damages of the petitioner's car. 17. The petitioner has adduced evidence that he had purchased the Tourist Ambassador car bearing registration No.TN-51Y-0939 on 23.11.2001 and had marked Ex.P11-copy of RC book, Ex.P14-transfer certificate showing transfer of policy in his name and Ex.P12-insurance policy. He had deposed that in the said accident all the parts including engine in the car had been damaged and that on 10.06.2002, he had written a letter to the insurance company explaining the damages to the car (Ex.P.15) and that the insurance company had acknowledgment receipt of the same (Ex.P16). He further deposed that the notice sent to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus seeking compensation for damages to his car had been marked as Ex.P17 and that the acknowledgment card had been marked as Ex.P18. The report prepared by the assessee detailing the damages incurred in his car was marked as Ex.P21. 18. RW.5, Senthilkumar, the Surveyor in the insurance company had deposed that the lost of spare parts required to replace the parts damaged in the Ambassador car would be Rs.85,810/- and that the lost of labour involved to do the work would be Rs.13,550/-and that the total expenditure involved for making the car operational would be Rs.99,360/-. In support of his evidence, he had marked as Ex.P21, the Surveyor report. On scrutiny of ex.P20, it is seen that the insurance company in its reply notice had expressed its inability to pay compensation for damages to car as the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In support of his evidence, he had marked as Ex.P21, the Surveyor report. On scrutiny of ex.P20, it is seen that the insurance company in its reply notice had expressed its inability to pay compensation for damages to car as the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P22 the cash bill it is seen that a sum of Rs.36,567.05/-has been paid by the petitioner for buying spare parts for the damaged car from Manickam Auto Parts Company, Kumbakonam. 19. PW.6, Gopal, adduced evidence that he is running a tinkering shop in the name and style of Vignesh Tinker Works adduced evidence that he had sold a cell to the petitioner in June 2012, for fitting in the Ambassador car and that he had sold it for Rs.36,400/-and that the sale receipt is marked as Ex.P3. 20. PW.7, Madasami, had adduced evidence that he is running a tinkering work shop in the name and style Modern Auto Garage, Karaikal road, Kumbakonam and that he had filed the cell given by the petitioner in the Ambassador car and that he had received Rs.13,550/- as service charges from the petitioner and that the receipt had been marked as Ex.P24. 21. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P24, awarded a compensation of Rs.13,550/-towards labour charges. However, the tribunal on considering that the amount mentioned for purchase of a new cell in ex.P23 was on the higher side, awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for purchase of new cell. The Tribunal granted Rs.240/-as compensation for charges towards photographs taken as per ex.P28, receipts and Rs.2,050/- was awarded towards Surveyor charges as per ex.P27. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.600/- towards transport charges for transport of damaged car to workshop and Rs.36,567.05/- was awarded towards purchase of spare parts from Manickam Auto parts Company, Kumbokonam, as per Ex.P2. In total, the Tribunal assisted Rs.73,007/-as compensation for damages towards car to the petitioner. Hence, the tribunal directed the 1st respondent insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to petitioner for damages to his car together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order. 22. Hence, the tribunal directed the 1st respondent insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to petitioner for damages to his car together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order. 22. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 1st respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagapattinam, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal erred in holding that this appellant has to pay compensation to the claimant inspite of the clear and categorical finding that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the driver of the 2nd respondent's bus. It was pointed out that the tribunal failed to consider that the very same tribunal, in other cases, involving the same accident and in the other original petition No.456 of 2003 decided by the common order, has held that it was the 2nd respondent who has to pay the entire compensation as the accident happened due to the negligence of their driver. It was contended that the tribunal erred in holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to compensation in spite of the violation of the terms of policy by allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person, whose licence was not effective on the date of accident and has erred in holding that non renewal of licence is not a breach of conditions of policy. It was also pointed out that the other reasons to hold this appellant liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent and to exonerate the 2nd respondent from any liability are equally unsound and unsustainable in law. 23. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased Ravichandran was travelling in his car and that the legal heir of the deceased had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.456 of 2003 and claimed compensation. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,64,500/- with interest. It clearly proves that the insurance company is also equally liable to pay compensation for damages to the vehicle. The claimant had also foled relevant documents namely Exs.P1 to P8 to prove the damages of the car in the said accident. For assessing the damage, the surveyor had also been examined. It clearly proves that the insurance company is also equally liable to pay compensation for damages to the vehicle. The claimant had also foled relevant documents namely Exs.P1 to P8 to prove the damages of the car in the said accident. For assessing the damage, the surveyor had also been examined. Actually, the claimant had claimed Rs.90,607/-but the tribunal had granted only Rs.60,000/- which is less that the assessment done by it. The learned tribunal after framing necessary issues had decided the liability and quantum on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. As such, there is no lacuna in the said accident. 24. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award passed by the tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. This Court had imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire award amount on 01.07.2005. 25. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount lying in the credit of 489 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tanjavur, Kumbakonam, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any, made by the claimant as per this Court's earlier order. 26. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in 489 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tanjavur, Kumbakonam, is confirmed, dated 25.11.2004.No costs.