ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. BHAGIRATHIBAI VISHWANATH DOKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - Insurance Company, who is original respondent No. 3 in MACP No. 592 of 1996 has preferred this appeal challenging the award dtd. 1/7/2002 passed by the learned MACT, Ahmednagar in the aforesaid claim petition on various grounds such as negligence of deceased, excessive computation of the compensation, breach of policy condition etc. However, during the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellant Company fairly submitted that he would challenge the impugned award only on the aspect of breach of policy condition. Therefore, I am not going to consider the other grounds of the appeal except the ground whereby aspect of breach of policy condition is raised.

(2.) Since the learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company waived the other grounds, it appears that it has not disputed the quantum of compensation along with other aspects including the negligence of the deceased. Even otherwise also it appears from record that there was documentary evidence before the learned Tribunal as regards the income of deceased. Further, the computation of the compensation done by the learned Tribunal appears to be arrived at on the basis of the said income. Thus, the appellant Company has declined to dispute the quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000.00as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 namely the original claimants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously submits that the respondent No. 5 / original respondent No. 1 who was driving an auto rikshaw at the time of incident was not having valid driving license and therefore the fundamental breach of the policy condition has taken place which is sufficient to exonerate the appellant Insurance Company from the liability of compensation to the original claimants. Admittedly, there are certain judgments wherein it is considered as a fundamental breach of policy condition if the driver of an offending vehicle does not possess valid driving license. In the instant case, the appellant company has taken a defence in its written statement (Exhibit 21) that the respondent No. 5 driver of the offending rikshaw was not having valid driving license.