DILIP RANGA GEUNKAR Vs. NARAYAN CAMU VOLIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is directed against the judgment dated 31st July, 1987, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Goa, allowed the application filed by the respondents herein and granted a compensation of Rs. 29,000/- to be paid exclusively by the appellant.

(2.) ON 5th March, 1982, at 7.30 a.m., an accident took place near Sulkorna. One small boy by name Vishwas, son of the respondents, was proceeding at that time to school from his house situated at Sulkorna. He was walking on the left side of the tarred road when the appellant came from the opposite direction driving the scooter No. CDC 4143. He dashed against the said Vishwas and caused him several injuries, and in particular, fracture of his right leg. An application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get compensation for their son, as according to them, the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant. They claimed a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- only.

(3.) AFTER evidence was recorded, the learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was due to the exclusive fault of the appellant, who drove his scooter in a rash and negligent manner. Thereafter, addressing himself to the question of compensation to be allowed, the learned Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 32,500/-, but considering that the said compensation was to be paid in a lump sum, reduced it to Rs. 29,000/- plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim till satisfaction. He also held that there was no liability of the insurance company, as it has been brought on record that the appellant was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time of the accident, although prior to it, he had been holding a learner's licence. He held that under the terms and conditions of the policy, there exists liability of the company only when a vehicle is driven by a person who holds a valid driving licence.