JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai/Principal Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the liability fixed on the appellant/Insurance Company vide award dated 30.10.2010 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai. 2. The claimant/1st respondent filed a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident which took place on 20.11.2008. 3. According to the first respondent/claimant, on 20.11.2008 at about 02.00 p.m., while the claimant after completing his coolie work was having lunch with his co-workers near a house situated at 6th Avenue, 20th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, the second respondent's driver drove the Toyota Corolla Car bearing registration No. TN-20-S-6678 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and his friends. Due to the said impact, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Hence, he filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai. 4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the claimant has sustained permanent disability as a result of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car belonging to the second respondent insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and granted a sum of Rs.5,38,550/- as total compensation and directed the appellant/Insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant. 5. Challenging the award dated 30.10.2010 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.190 of 2009 exonerating the 2nd respondent/owner of the car from its liability, the appellant/Insurance Company have come out with the present appeal. 6. 5. Challenging the award dated 30.10.2010 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.190 of 2009 exonerating the 2nd respondent/owner of the car from its liability, the appellant/Insurance Company have come out with the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant, because the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent/claimant and failed to note that the original driver Ramachandran, entrusted the Car to one Vijaya Baskarapandian, who does not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the 2nd respondent/owner of the car. Hence, he prays to fix the liability on the 2nd respondent/owner of the car alone to pay the compensation to the claimant. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Claimant submitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car owned by the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant. He would further contend that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged 40 years and was hale and healthy. Further, the claimant suffered 80 % permanent disability and in order to prove the disability of the claimant, Ex.P.14 (Disability Certificate) has been marked before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the Tribunal have given valid reason for giving such a finding. In any event, the amount awarded by the Tribunal fixing the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company is just and reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctors who treated the claimant were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and eighteen (18) documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18 on the side of the claimant. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, one Mr.Gazaline Najamudin, Junior Assistant of the Regional Transport Office, Meenambakkam was examined as R.W.1 and Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.R1- Driving Licence was marked. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused all the materials available on record. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused all the materials available on record. 10. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would go to show that the Tribunal, after considering the material documents, has held that the original driver of the car appointed by the 2nd respondent has entrusted the car to one Vijaya Bhaskara Pandiyan, who did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident without the knowledge of the owner. The Tribunal has relied upon the dictum laid down in the judgment reported in 2006(2) MAC 194 (Kant) in the case of Pitambarm Tandel v. Smt. Ashwani Ashok Naik and observed the relevant portion of the said judgment which reads as follows: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 149 and 168 – Liability of Insurance Company- Question of vehicle employed driver having authorised driving licence – Accident caused by vehicle when that driver permitted another person having no licence to drive vehicle and he was sitting by his side-this fact was not known to owner – In such situation, Insurance Company is liable to compensate injured persons- Owner did not commit conscious breach of terms of policy, therefore, that breach would not amount to breach of policy.” Hence, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.5,38,550/- as total compensation to the claimant, which is just and reasonable compensation and there is no error in the said award warranting interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,38,550/- (Rupees five lakh thirty eight thousand five hundred and fifty only) along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interests and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.190 of 2009. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The Award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. No costs.