1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2008 in M.C.O.P.No.435 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 06.03.2007, at about 10.00 a.m, the claimant was walking in the Kudavasal Main Road from West – East direction. At that time, the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-50-Y-2440, was driven by the first respondent's driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor claimant. As a result of which, he sustained injuries on the leg, head and hip. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, and later removed to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.

3. In respect of the offence, a case in Crime No.35 of 2007 has been registered. Claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4 lakhs, the claimant approached the Tribunal.

4. The case of the appellant/2nd respondent is that the policy insured with the appellant is admitted. But, the rider of the two wheeler was not owning the proper driving license at the time of the occurrence. The accident is also disputed, since the minor claimant actually sustained injuries, when he was playing and not in the motor accident.

5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and six documents marked. On the side of the second respondent, two witnesses were examined and three documents marked.

6. At the conclusion of enquiry, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent's driver and only because of his negligence, the accident took place.

7. Regarding the compensation, on the basis of the Medical Records and Disability Certificate, it has assessed the compensation at Rs.46,000/-. Challenging the liability, the appellant preferred this appeal.

8. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the quantum is not disputed and so, this Court need not discuss much about the assessment of compensation and disability suffered by the minor claimant. Since the argument is confined only to owning or non-owning of driving license, the same has to be analysised.

9. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle namely, the first respondent remained ex-parte. R.W.1 is the official attached to the Oriental Insurance Company. He Would say that they appointed an Investigation Officer to enquire the accident and he filed a report under Ex.R.2. It is admitted that the rider as well as the owner is the first respondent. Ex.P.3 is the Certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer. The document would show that even though the policy was in force on the date of accident, the rider was not owning proper driving license. Ex.R.2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report wherein, it has been stated that the rider of the two wheeler did not produce driving license. So, the Registration Certificate was seized and the same was submitted to Regional Transport Office, Mannarkudi. From this document, it is evident that the rider of the two wheeler namely, the first respondent was not owning proper driving license at the time of the accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first respondent was not owning proper driving license at the time of accident and so, directed the appellant to pay and recover the same from the owner.

10. At the time of argument, it is contended that the accident itself is disputed on the ground that there is a delay of two days in registering the police complaint. With regard to this dispute, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident really took place, involving the first respondent and his vehicle on the basis of the evidence and document.

11. The accident took place on 06.03.2007, P.W.1, who is the father of the claimant would say that the minor went to shop for purchasing and on his returning, the accident took place. But, the suggestion was made by him to the effect that the first respondent has admitted his guilt and paid fine amount before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for nonpossession of driving license. So, when that is being so, the contention on the part of the appellant that the vehicle was not involved in the occurrence cannot be accepted. In the First Information Report, it is stated that intimation was received from the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and the statement was recorded from the father namely, P.W.1. So, the delay in registering the First Information Report is only due to the delay of intimation from the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Accident Register. Wherein, it has been recorded that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 06.03.2007 in the Village. The information recorded in the Accident Register cannot be doubted. So, the contention on the part of the appellant that the accident did not take place cannot be accepted. So, this findings also require no interference.

12. In the result, the appeal fails and the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District in M.C.O.P.No.435 of 2007, dated 17.11.2008, is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

13. Since the petition was filed in the year of 2007, the minor would have attained majority by this time. If the amount is not being deposited by the Insurance Company and the same shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the minor if have attained majority may withdraw the entire amount if not, the Tribunal may disburse the amount on his attaining majority.