( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 5 who are the legal representatives of Iqbal Khan (the deceased) filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 4,24,500/-from the 6th respondent and the appellant, who are the owner and insurer respectively of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 2-7442 alleging that the deceased, who was a doctor, at the instance of the 6th respondent, went to give medical treatment to one of the relatives of the 6th respondent on the motor cycle belonging to the 6th respondent, and met with an accident resulting in his death. Sixth respondent chose to remain exparte before the Tribunal. Appeal against him was dismissed for default in payment of process.

( 2 ) IN support of the their case, respondents 1 to 5 examined two witnesses as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-5. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal held that respondents are entitled to rs. 1,79,600/- as compensation from the sixth respondent and appellant and passed an award accordingly. Questioning its liability to pay the compensation to respondents 1 to 5 and also the quantum of compensation awarded to them, the insurer of the motor cycle on which the deceased was proceeding at the time of his death, preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) SRI Kota Subbarao, Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions, (i) The Tribunal was in error in awarding huge compensation when the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and in any event the compensation awarded needs reduction, (ii) Since the deceased was not having a valid driving license, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation, (iii) Since the driver of the motor cycle is not covered by the policy of insurance, in any event, appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, (iv) Interest awarded is too high.

( 4 ) SINCE the appellant admittedly, did not obtain permission under Section 170 of the act, to take all the pleas that are open to the 6th respondent, who chose to remain exparte, in view of the ratio in National Insurance company Limited v. Nicolletta Rohtagi appellant cannot question the quantum of compensation. So the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced.

( 5 ) IN view of the ratio in National Insurance company Limited v. Swaran Singh, question whether the deceased was having a valid driving license or not is not relevant If the appellant is able to establish that the deceased was not having a valid driving license and that 6th respondent knowing that fact entrusted the motorcycle to the deceased, it can after paying the compensation awarded to the claimants, recover the said amount from 6th respondent. So the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant also has no force.

( 6 ) IN support of his third contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on new India Assurance v. Asha Rani and ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance company Limited. The said decisions have no application to the facts of this case because they relate to cases of passengers in goods vehicle, by interpreting Section 147 (1) and proviso thereto.

( 7 ) IN Asha Rani case it is held as follows in para 25. "25. Section 147 of 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle . Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the workmen s Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a goods carriage . "

( 8 ) IN fact, para 26 of the said judgment would be an answer to the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It reads:"26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis-a-vis 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document