UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SURESH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 20. 6. 2007 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,62,400 together with interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent per annum in favour of claimant-respondent for the death of her husband in a vehicular accident. The award further directed that the compensation with the interest be paid within 45 days of the receipt of the judgment and award.

(2.) THE material facts leading to the filing of the appeal may be noticed at the very outset. The vehicular accident was alleged to have occurred when on 22. 1. 2006 at about 12. 30 p. m. , one Dwarika Ram, husband of the claimant, was hit by one maruti van bearing registration No. ML 05-C 9652 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Dwarika Ram instantly died on the spot. He was 42 years old at the time of the accident and is survived by his wife (the claimant) and his two children. The deceased was claimed to be self-employed at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 6,000 per month. The claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent demanded a compensation of Rs. 6,36,000 for the death of her husband. The Motor accidents Claims Tribunal entertained the petition and issued notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as well as to the insurer, which is the appellant herein. The claim petition was resisted by the insurer and the insured by filing separate written statements. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) TO substantiate her case, claimant represented by her attorney examined as many as four witnesses, while the owner-respondent examined three witnesses to contest the claim petition. She, however, did not examine herself in the witness-box. None was examined on behalf of the insurer, though oral arguments were advanced on its behalf which was supported by written submissions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award, the correctness whereof is under challenge in this appeal. Attacking the impugned judgment, mrs. R. D. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the insurer, submits that the learned member of the Tribunal has completely overlooked the well established principles of res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves) in appreciating the evidence established on record; it is not at all necessary for the insurer to adduce evidence if it can prove its case from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant-respondent and other materials on the record. So understood, contends the learned counsel, there was no evidence on behalf of the owner of the vehicle to prove that she had handed over the offending vehicle to a driver with a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that, on the contrary, there is ample evidence to show that the owner of the offending vehicle had handed over the vehicle in question to a driver, namely, L. Kharbishnop, opw 3, with the knowledge that he did not possess a valid driving licence and that the introduction of the story of the other driver, namely, Thorat Singh Kharsati, OPW 2, was an afterthought to escape her liability to satisfy the award and, conversely, to wrongly saddle such liability upon the appellant insurance company. Finally, it is contended by learned counsel that when opw 1, son of the owner of the offending vehicle, himself exhibited the policy of insurance showing the clause which was violated by the owner, no further proof is required for the appellant to show that the owner consciously committed breach of the policy condition. To buttress her contention, learned counsel for the appellant, takes me to a decision of the Apex Court in Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire and genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. , 1989 ACJ 1078 (SC ).