ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAMESH CHAND SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, two F.A.Os. bearing F.A.O. No. 7387 of 2010 and F.A.O. No. 7410 of 2010 shall be disposed of as the same are arising out of same award dated 22.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from F.A.O. No. 7387 of 2010. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the claimants were going on motorcycle which was being driven by Ramesh Chand Sethi, whereas, Banmali Sethi and Shashi Kant Sethi were pillion riders. On reaching near Magpie Chowk, Mathura Road, Faridabad, they were hit by Tata Canter 1109 bearing its registration No. HR -38 -L -0452, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The riders of motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Both injured were shifted to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad and were got admitted as indoor patients. Thereafter, they were taken to Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad and remained admitted there for about a week. The claimant Ramesh Chand Sethi lodged the report with the police which resulted into FIR No. 819 dated 17.12.2008 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at Police Station Central Faridabad. Two separate claim petitions were filed by both the claimants and claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs each along with interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) THE owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed written statement and the claim petition was contested being not maintainable. Even the accident was denied and it was stated that the same had been filed just to extract compensation. The Insurance Company took the stand that the Insurance Company is not liable as there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 22.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was having two driving licenses, whereas, as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, a driver cannot possess two driving licenses. The Insurance Company also deposited the diet money for summoning the record from the Licensing Authority, Muzaffarnagar and the Licensing Authority, Mathura for verification of the driving licenses and to prove that the licenses were not valid at the time of accident. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of the Insurance Company on the ground that the driving license (exhibit R -1) which was later on tendered, was not verified and the license (exhibit R -1) which was found in the possession of the driver himself was valid. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy and there was a violation of Section. 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act.