NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD. Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same Motor Vehicular Accident which took place on 15/3/2006 involving offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. JK-14/9448, which was being driven by respondent No.9 herein, rashly and negligently. In the accident Rajinder Kumar and Dhani Ram suffered grievous injuries to which they later succumbed. The legal representatives of the deceased Rajinder Kumar filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) which was registered as File No. 33/claim and another petition filed by Foto Bai mother of deceased Dhani Ram. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together by the Tribunal on 27/10/2006 and decided by a common award which is impugned by the appellant insurance company in these two separate appeals.

(2.) The claim petitions were contested inter alia by the appellant- insurance company. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(3.) The issues No.1 and 2 were held proved by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants and against the appellant insurance company. Similarly, the issue No.3, the onus whereof was on the appellant insurance company, was held not proved on the ground that the appellant-insurance company, though, asserted that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but could not prove the same by leading any evidence. Accordingly, the claimants in file No.33/claim, namely, Usha Devi and others were held entitled to the compensation of Rs.9,30,000.00 along with interest @7.5% per annum pendentelite and future till liquidation. Similarly, claimant Foto Bai was held entitled to the sum of Rs.3,33,000.00 along with interest as was awarded in the connected claim petition. Aggrieved, the appellant-insurance company is in appeal against the award passed in two claim petitions aforesaid and challenges the same inter alia on the ground that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and not in consonance with law; and, that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle for the reasons that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence.