ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. KOKILABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 11/11/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), by which, the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay the Rs.6,67,252.00 with cost and interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application.

(2.) Brief Facts of the case are as under:-

(3.) Learned advocate for the Insurance Company, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the driver of the other vehicle is not holding valid and effective driving license. He has submitted that the documentary evidence along with the copy of RTO letter etc., are produced and various officers from the RTO have also been examined by the Insurance Company and according to the fact that the license produced by the respondent No. 1 is fake. When the Opponent No. 1 raised the claim before the Insurance Company about the damage of his scooter at that point of time, the Insurance Company came to know about the license and it is found that the opponent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective license at the time of accident. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the submission of the appellant that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and depositions of RTO Officer at Ex. 48, is not properly appreciated. He has further submitted that when two vehicles are involved, and when there is head on collision, both the vehicles are responsible equally and the Tribunal has held only one vehicle responsible. He has relied upon the judgment of Maniben S. Pandya v. Shashikant P. Shrigalor reported in GLR 1878 (2004) 3. He has also disputed the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in view of the Sec. 149(2) A. Therefore, he has prayed to allow this appeal.