NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. TATOJI VARALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 who are the legal representatives of Yadagiri (the deceased) filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the 7th respondent and the appellant alleging that on 18. 02. 1996 when the deceased was proceeding on his scooter, a van belonging to the 7th respondent and insured with the appellant, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter being driven by the deceased resulting in the death of the deceased who was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month as goldsmith. Seventh respondent chose to remain ex parte. Appellant filed its counter inter alia contending that it is not liable to pay any compensation inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence.

(2.) ON their behalf respondents 1 to 6 examined two witnesses as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 4. one witness was examined as R. W. 1 on behalf of the appellant but no documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van belonging to the 7th respondent and passed an award for rs. 1,25,800/- in favour of respondents 1 to 6 against the 7th respondent and the appellant repelling the contention of the appellant that it is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants. Hence this appeal by the insurer of the vehicle that caused the accident.

(3.) THE point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 6?