LAWS(ORI)-2013-9-64

O.I. CO. LTD. Vs. SABITA PRADHAN

Decided On September 04, 2013
O.I. Co. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Sabita Pradhan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appellant -Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for the claimants -respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for the owner -respondent No. 3, inspite of service of notice. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment/award dated 22.09.2009, passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bargarh, in M.A.C. Case No. 53 of 2008, awarding an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - as compensation to be deposited within two within two months, failing which, interest @ 9% shall be payable.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company submits that as the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing No. OR -17 -E/7883 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, no liability could have been saddled on the present insurance, as the insurer of the offending motorcycle. In this regard it is submitted that as the learned Tribunal has come to find that the owner of the motorcycle, who was driving the same at the time of the accident did not possess a driving licence, which was in gross violation of the policy condition, the liability to pay the compensation amount should have been fixed on the owner of the motorcycle. It is further submitted that in absence of any evidence with regard to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/ - per month, for calculating the compensation amount payable. It is further submitted that as there was no documentary evidence with regard to the age of the deceased was below 50 years at the time of his accidental death, learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 13 to calculate the compensation amount payable.

(3.) ON perusal of the impugned award it is seen that learned Tribunal has come to hold that owner of the motorcycle bearing No. OR -17 -E/7883, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of his accident did not possess a valid driving licence. On the plea that the said motorcycle is a newly purchased vehicle, learned Tribunal proceeded to saddled the liability on the insurer.