ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company against the judgment and award dated 15-10-2011 passed in M.V.C. No.9163 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for the sake of convenience).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1-claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16-5-2009 at about 3:30 p.m. It is alleged that on the date of the accident, she was traveling as a passenger in a private bus bearing Registration No.KA-51/3372 at Koratagere main road towards Bengaluru, and when the said bus reached near Shettarapalya Bridge, Undigeri Hobli, Tumakuru, the driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and on account of over speed, the driver of the bus lost the control over the vehicle and the bus turned turtle. Due to the impact, herself and other in-mates of the bus sustained injuries. The petitioner took treatment at Tumakuru Hospital and later at E.S.I. Hospital, Bengaluru. She has spent sufficient money for treatment. She has suffered disability and discomforts, etc. Therefore, she filed the claim petition claiming compensation on various heads.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte and respondent No.1-insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the petition. It is contended that driver of the bus did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. However, admitted the issuance of the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident. Further, contended that liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the chiefexamination, the Legal Manager of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and he has contended that the petitioner has to prove that she was traveling in the bus bearing Registration No.KA-51/3772 on the date of the accident. She was not at all traveling in the said bus and her name does not reflect either in the F.I.R. or in the list of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the bus. The age and income of the petitioner has been denied. Alternatively, he contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. Liability on the insurance company has to be exonerated. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act have not been complied. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.