NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. BINATA BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals has been filed by the appellant-insurance companies challenging the order dated 20th November, 2000 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No. 245 of 1995 (S) awarding compensation in favour the claimant-respondents 1 to 3 to be payable by the National Insurance Company Ltd. and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. jointly and severally. Claimant-respondents 1 to 3 are respectively the wife, the son and the mother of deceased Banamali Dharua who died due to the motor vehicle accident in question which involve two vehicles, i.e., an ambassador car bearing registration number OR-02/A-5408 and a truck bearing registration number WB-23-3908. While the offending truck was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., the offending car was insured with New India Company Ltd.

(2.) The grievance of the National Insurance Company Ltd. (the appellant in M.A. No. 684 of 2001) is that there being no finding regarding contributory negligence on the part of the Scooterist which involved in the accident though there was plea and legal evidence on record to that effect, non-quantification of percentage of the contributory negligence of the Scooterist has vitiated the award. Therefore, the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has filed this appeal questioning the same, seeking for modification of the impunged award to that extent.

(3.) The grievance of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the appellant in the connected appeal) is that fastening of liability upon this Insurance Company, is not legal and valid as the driving licence of the driver of the offending truck was a fake one which is supported by Ext. C obtained from the R.T.O., Allahabad. However, the same is not considered for which there is violation of the terms and condition of the policy issued in respect of the truck. Therefore, liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company could not have been fastened by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant N.I.A. Company has requested to allow its appeal and set aside the impunged judgment in holding that both the insurance companies are jointly and severally liable. On the other hand, it has requested to fasten the liability upon the insured as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in engaging a person who does not possess a valid driving licence.