ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAMESH B JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE miscellaneous first appeals are filed by the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in accident, calling in question the common judgment and award dated 22. 4. 2003 passed in the m. V. C. Nos. 2942 and 2687 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, court of Small Causes, (SCCH No. 7), Bangalore (the M. A. C. T. for short ).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are: one Roopesh Jain was riding Kinetic honda bearing registration No. KA 01-L 5543 and Ramesh Jain was the pillion rider. On 20. 4. 1997, at about 11. 20 p. m. , on M. G. Road near Spencer Building, a tempo bearing certificate of registration no. KA 05-745 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Kinetic honda by which the rider and the pillion sustained grievous injuries. Roopesh Jain, the rider was declared dead on arrival to the hospital while Ramesh Jain, the pillion rider was admitted to St. Marthas Hospital. The Cubbon Park police charge-sheeted the driver of Tempo for rash and negligent driving.

(3.) THE claimants in M. V. C. No. 2942 of 1997 are the parents, younger brother and sister of the deceased. The claimant in m. V. C. No. 2687 of 1997 is the injured. Respondent No. 1 in M. V. C. No. 2942 of 1997 and respondent No. 2 in M. V. C. No. 2687 of 1997 is the appellant before this court in both the appeals. Respondent No. 2 in M. V. C. No. 2942 of 1997 and respondent No. 1 in M. V. C. No. 2687 of 1997 is the owner of the motor vehicle, which caused the accident while respondent No. 3 in both the claim petitions is the driver of the vehicle. On notice, the driver of the offending vehicle remained absent and was placed ex pane and subsequently he was deleted by the claimants in both the petitions. The only contesting party was the appellant insurer. The appellant in its statement before the M. A. C. T. had admitted the existence of a valid policy of insurance of Tempo for the period from 7. 2. 97 to 6. 2. 1998 while denying all other material averments set out in claim petitions. In addition, the appellant had specifically contended that the driver of Tempo did not hold a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and on that ground they were not liable to pay any compensation. On the premise of the aforesaid pleadings, the M. A. C. T. framed issues with regard to rash and negligent driving and entitlement to compensation. Claimants examined two witnesses as PW 1 and pw 2 and 204 documents were exhibited as Exhs. P-1 to P-204 while the respondent insurance company has examined two witnesses RW 1 and RW 2 and produced 8 documents marked as Exhs. R-1 to R-8. The M. A. C. T. on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, attributed actionable negligence to the driver of Tempo in causing the accident resulting in death of the scooter rider Roopesh Jain and grievous injuries to Ramesh Jain, the pillion rider. On the question of quantum of compensation, the M. A. C. T. awarded a sum of rs. 2,41,000 to claimants/dependants in m. V. C. No. 2942 of 1997 and Rs. 2,40,000 to claimant-injured in M. V. C. No. 2687 of 1997 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. With regard to the issue of liability of the insurance company, the m. A. C. T. found that the insurer had failed to substantiate its contention, therefore, was held liable to pay the compensation. The appellant insurer being aggrieved of the finding of the M. A. C. T. making it liable to pay the compensation has preferred these two appeals.