ISHWAR Vs. KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of MA.No.1671/11 as in both the appeals award under challenge is dated 23/03/11 passed by V MACT, Indore. In MA.No.1670/11 the award under challenge is passed in Claim Case No.529/09, while in MA.No.1671/11 the award under challenge is passed in Claim Case No.530/09.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that in both the appeals claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 08/02/09 appellant Ishwar was going on a motor bike alongwith pillion rider Rajendra. It was alleged that the said motor bike met with an accident with a loading tempo bearing registration No.MP/13- T/2445 which was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. It was prayed that the claim petitions be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petitions were contested by respondent NO.3 on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No.1 was not possessing valid driving license, therefore, insurance company is not liable. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation of L 1,37,800/- to appellant Ishwar and L 1,98,000/- to appellant Rajendra and exonerated respondent No.3 on the ground that respondent No.1 was not possessing valid driving license, against which both the appeals have been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside so far as it relates to exoneration of respondent No.3. It is submitted that respondent No.1 was possessing the license to drive light motor vehicle, which was valid w.e.f. 11/01/99 to 01/01/2019. It is submitted that thereafter in the license there was an endorsement to drive the transport vehicle which was valid w.e.f. 30/12/04 to 28/12/07 and thereafter again the license on which there is endorsement to drive the transport vehicle was renewed w.e.f. 16/02/09. It is submitted that since the accident occurred on 08/02/09 and prior to it and after the accident respondent NO.1 was possessing the license, therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating respondent No.3. It is submitted that at the most right of recovery could have been given to respondent No.3. It is submitted that both the appeals be allowed and impugned award whereby respondent NO.3 has been exonerated be set aside.