UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHARADA ADYANATHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is by the Insurance Company against the Award in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE first respondent-claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the daughter of one Meenakshi. On 17-1-1980, at about 7. 45 p. m. , while Meenakshi along with one Devaki was going along the Court Road, Udupi, an Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. MYX 7195 driven by the second respondent and owned by respondent No. 3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Meenakshi and Devaki. Meenakshi sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and later she succumbed to the injuries. An application for compensation was filed by the first respondent alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent. Earlier to this application, one Devi Prasad Shetty, S/o the deceased Meenakshi, had filed an application for compensation on account of the death of his mother Meenakshi. After contest, the above application was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 1-3-1984 which is produced as Ex. D. 12 in the case. It is alleged that the present claimant was not a party to this application. On various grounds, the claimant claimed compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle.

(3.) THE appellant-Insurance Company and other respondents before the Tribunal contested the application on various grounds. The main contentions taken by them were to the effect that the present application is barred by the principles of res judicata on account of the dismissal of the earlier application filed by Devi Prasad Shetty, S/o deceased Meenakshi. It was also contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of the autorickshaw (second respondent) had no valid driving licence on the date of the accident and that, in such an event, the policy clearly excludes the liability of the insurer and accordingly, the Insurance Company is not, in any way, liable. The claim was resisted on the ground that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.