ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SADANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of an award of the M.A.C.T. Mavelikkara in O. P. (MV) Nos. 620/86 & 760/86. Both the petitions were in respect of a common accident which happened on 30.5.1986, as a result of a collision between a Scooter bearing Reg. No. KLK 9508 and a bus bearing Reg. No. KLY 6951. O. P. (MV) 620/86 was filed by the legal heirs of one Sureshkumar who was riding the scooter and who died in the accident. O. P.(MV) 760/86 was filed by the pillion rider who was also injured in the accident. Driver, owner and insurer of the Bus were impleaded as respondents 1 to 3 respectively. Later, the owner took up a contention that the Bus was being driven by one Ramachandran Pillai and not by the first respondent and on that basis, addl. 4th respondent was impleaded in O. P. (MV) 620/86. But, he was not impleaded in O. P.(MV) 760/86. The Tribunal disposed of both the petitions under a common award.

(2.) Tribunal found that the driver of the Bus, at the time of the accident, was the first respondent and that the 2nd respondent owner had failed to prove his case that it was the 4th respondent who was the driver of the vehicle. Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. In O. P. (MV) 620/86, the claim put forward by the petitioners was for a compensation of Rs. 3,13,600/-. Deceased was a 23rd year old boy and a student of B.A. degree. Tribunal granted a total amount of Rs. 93,000/-. In O. P. (MV) 760/86, total claim was Rs. 24,580/-. Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 8,400/-. 3rd respondent Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award.

(3.) Insurance Company had contended before the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was not having proper driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore Insurance Company is absolved of the liability. It was also contended that as per the policy, its liability to third party is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Tribunal entered a finding that the 1st respondent was not having the required driving licence to drive the bus at the time of the accident. But, it did not accept the contention of the Insurance Company that it is absolved of the liability and that its liability towards third party is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. A copy of the Insurance Policy was produced as Ext. R1, and Branch Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1. Tribunal took the view that since the original or carbon copy of the Insurance Policy was not produced before the Court, the contention of the Insurance Company that there is violation of the terms of the policy and / or that its liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/- under the terms of the policy towards third party cannot be examined at all. It was on the above basis those contentions were rejected. Aggrieved by the above, Insurance Company has filed these appeals.