NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. T SHARANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard the learned counsel for the appellant-sri m. Sowri raju and Sri k. Suryanarayana rao for respondent 1, that is the injured as well as Sri s.v. prakash, counsel for the owner of the moped-respondent 2, in the claim petition.

(2.) the only question that has been raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant in the context of the facts of the case, is to the effect that the learned tribunal committed error of law as well as error of fact in holding that the insurance company, that is the appellant, i.e., respondent 2, in the claim petition; has failed to make out a case under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) and as such, there is the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation money to the claimant-respondent 1, in the appeal?

(3.) the learned counsel submitted that the above finding is based on non-application of the mind to the facts that the owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness box as well as he failed to produce the licence. The learned counsel further submitted that an adverse presumption should have been drawn against the owner of the vehicle, that is respondent 2, in the present appeal and the tribunal should have held that he being the owner of the vehicle is only liable to pay.