Sri J N Ramesh S/O J R … vs Fazilbanu D/O A M Riyaz on 26 March, 2009

{SR.DN) AND ADDL. MACE', CHALLAKEREZ, AWARDING A

CGMPENSATIGN 0? Rs. 1 1,000/- WYFH iN"§EREST,s;gz;"}».§§9§;_
PA FROM 'rm DATE 09 PEZTITION TILL DE;:><;)s1.'1ii_   ~  "

THIS APPEAL COMING 0N__F,l'.}_R HE§A'1"%a§1i¥J.§:-~--.:. "  

JuDGM§g§\ 
This appeal is  the  'af  (Hero
§'uch) chalienging tlfi' by whiciu
MACT had di:¢¢'t¢fi tlgé"  ti); pay the
award    fmm the
 A' ciirecticn, the insured

has czéme ap b'€f(:')r:é% 

  'a1'h(f3  'fé1ct§; fire not in dispute and the

  awéfdad is only Rs.1},,()()()/-- t0 the

   dimctcid the insurance c0mpa:1y to

pay--t11€:'Cc:sfifiapensation and recover the same from the

  insurebi and this diI'€CtiIi)I} was gven Mmuse the

 if: question (iI't')V€ the Hem ?uch Vehicle for

"  Wfiziaich he had I16 valid iicfince, but licenca 111131: was

possessed by hgimégaf in respect of auto oniy.

1;}



3. L{'3aZ'I1r':3d counsel Srii. Vishxvarzath 2.

for the appeliant I'fif€;{'i'Iil1g to the decision  in  M

AIR 1987 8.6.1184 (skandia 1néu:mc;g <;:c.{f;;.a;;§i:::d 

Vs Kokilabexz Chandravadan.)    "

the i1"1su1'aI1ce con1pa_ny to  
willfuily brrzached £53,.  pc1i;%y and
that the insured ms¢:g1%1s;;s  the driver
to drive the ;j¥éE'€£5.f§if3  driver had no
valié   been discharged
by  é:her€fo1':: MAST could
not   {:9 pay and i'('3CG7V'f11' the

amt'; an: frdm-. i;f1e"'iI1s':,;:'ed.

  the ether hand, ieamitfid caunsei Sri.

K..;'f-E.' S1"ijfi§v£;:Sa far the respondent 210.12 iI1Si._1I"aI}C{3

e01§1§sa§::Ly*.’é§:rgued that the questian of the insurance

n ¢:smpa::y being liabiae xvii} mm arisfi in View 0:” the

kijlriver I101: possessing valid driving licence which is

H evident fmm the licence pffldtlcfid at E:~;.R.3 which is

011%}? in respect of ante and not in raspect: {}f the Hero

/

yr

as such, the appeal is dismissed. Amount in depesit

be tlmzsferred t0 the MACE’,

I”d9®§7 f *

1391*: