SUNIL SHETTY S/O BALAKRISHNA SHETTY REP. BY GPA HOLDER NALINI SHETTY Vs. SHANKAR KULAL S/O DEJAPPA KULAL, YASHODHARA B. SHETTY S/O BALAKRISHNA BHANDARY AND BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of fact and that of law arise for decision -making, hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals, though listed for admission, axe clubbed together finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) M .F.A. No. 5490/2005 and M.F.A. 5489/2005 are preferred by the insured -owner of the offending motor vehicle, calling in question the common judgment and award dated 22 -03 -2005 in M.V.C. Nos. 2213/2000 and M.V.C. No. 1508/1998 on the file of the Prl. District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangakxre, (for short 'MACT').

(3.) THE motor vehicle being a bus bearing Certificate of Registration No. KA -19/3619 owned by the appellant in M.R.A. No. 5490 and 5489/2005 and insured by the 1st respondent United India Insurance Company Limited, driven in a rash and negligent manner, caused an accident on 25 -04 -1998 at about 10.15 p.m. near Yeyyadi Bus stop, due to which one Naveen Kulal succumbed to grievous injury and another Sunil Shetry, the appellant in M.F.A. No. 314/2006 sustained grievous injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased, instituted a Claim Petition in M.V.C. No. 1508/1998 and the injured -claimant instituted M.V.C. No. 2213/2000. The insurer and the insured on notice, entered appearance and filed their respective Statement of objections. The insured denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and contended that the vehicle was entrusted to one Shankar Poojary holding a valid driving licence, while denying the claim as excessive and exorbitant In addition, it was contended that as the offending vehicle was insured, it is the insurer who is liable to reimburse the compensation. Thfe insurer, in its defence raised the plea that the offending motor vehicle was driven by one Shankar Kulal, a cleaner of the bus, without a valid driving licence to drive the bus or any other vehicle, and that therefore the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, disentitling the insured to an indemnity. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed the following issues: