The burden of proof rests on the insurer to demonstrate policy violations; failure to do so maintains their liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed against the decree and order dated 16.05.2012 passed in O.P.No.247 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Judge, Anantapur (for short “the learned MACT”). The claim was allowed against the owner-cum-driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 02 X 5958 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

2. Dissatisfied by the dismissal of the claim against the Insurance Company, the claimants are before this Court.

3. The claimants before the learned MACT are the appellants herein. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. The learned MACT found the entitlement of the claimants at Rs.2,00,200/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- but dismissed the claim against the Insurance Company on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license at relevant time.

Factual Matrix:

5(i). One Kondi Bheemanna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), aged about 60 years, boarded the offending vehicle on 29.12.2009 at about 10.00 A.M. for travelling to Narpala. When the offending vehicle was on the road from Diggumarri to Narpala, within the limits of Narpala Police Station, Anantapuram District, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control due to high speed and negligent driving and the offending vehicle turned turtle, whereby the accident occurred and the deceased succumbed to injuries while shifting him to the hospital.

5(ii). A case in Crime No.147 of 2009 was registered and subsequently charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.

5(iii). The deceased was aged about „60‟ years, working as Cobbler and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by the date of accident.

5(iv). Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. They lost valuable financial support and also dependency.

5(v). Since Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver, the tortfeasor, and as the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2, both are liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

Case of Respondent No.2:

7(i). The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective policy issued for the offending vehicle, compliance with the conditions of policy, valid and effective driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants and entitlement of the claimants for compensation.

7(ii). It is also asserted by Respondent No.2 that all the claimants are not dependents.

7(iii). The learned MACT framed issues touching the negligence and entitlement of claimants for compensation, as well as the liability of the respondents, and held the issue relating to negligence in favour of the claimants after referring to the evidence of PW.1 and documents Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Charge sheet.

7(iv). With regard to the liability of the respondents to pay compensation, since Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver remained ex parte, he is found liable.

7(v). Learned MACT observing that the respondent Insurance Company issued notice for production of the driving license and as the same was not produced, an adverse inference can be drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle found that Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation.

8. Learned MACT while quantifying the compensation, taken income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum, adopted multiplier „8‟ and deducted 1/3^rd of the