Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. At the cost of repetition, this court wants to emphasize the point that the scheme of compulsory insurance is aimed at protecting the poor victims keeping in mind the fact that all those who own motor vehicles will not be in a position to satisfy the awards of compensation that may be passed in the motor accident cases. Under such circumstances, the liability of the insurer towards the third party victim, whose interests are sought to be protected by compulsory insurance scheme, should be held absolute. The said statutory protection given to the victims of the motor accidents cannot be taken away or diluted by the fact that there was an act on the part of the insured which amounted to violation of a condition of a policy. At best, such violation will govern the rights of the insured and insurer interse without affecting the rights of the third party victims. The question of willful violation of the policy condition may be relevant in so far as the voluntary coverage of insurance over and above this statutory requirement which shall include own damages and personal accident claim. This is not such a case. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the appellant's/insurer's liability towards the first respondent (victim) is absolute. At the same time, the appellant having proved that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident, is entitled to a direction incorporated in the award itself enabling it to recover the compensation amount from the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle after making payment to the first respondent victim.