1. These two appeals are by the claimants questioning correctness and legality of judgment and award passed by MACT, Bangalore dated 02.09.2010 in MVC No.5018/2009 and 5029/2009 whereunder claim petitions came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs. 3,48,000/- and Rs.6,21,000/- respectively came to be awarded together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit, as against claim of Rs, 10 lakhs each and liability has been fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle by absolving the insurer on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.

2. I have heard the arguments of Smt.P.V.Kalpana, learned Advocate appearing for claimants and Sri.R.Rajgopalan, learned Advocate appearing for Insurer. Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate and Sri.Gopalakrishna, learned Advocates have also contributed their assistance by advancing arguments in support of the contentions raised by Smt.P.V.Kalpana, learned Advocate appearing for claimants.

3. In both the appeals, notice to the owner of the offending vehicle was taken out by substituted service namely, through paper publication and by order dated 03.09.2012 and 30.08.2012 respectively it has been held as service being sufficient. None have appeared on behalf of the owner.

4. Husband and wife were proceeding on a motorcycle on 30.06.2009 and said vehicle was hit by a Light Goods Vehicle (Lorry) on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver. Due to impact, both fell down and sustained injuries. Wife Smt.Vijayalakshmi died at the spot due to grievous injuries sustained by her. Injured husband filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of disability suffered and he also filed a claim petition along with his children seeking compensation on account of death of his wife. Both claim petitions were allowed in part and compensation was awarded. Liability was fixed on the owner of the offending vehicle by absolving the insurer of its liability on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess driving licence to drive transport vehicle. Hence, claimants have filed these two appeals seeking liability to be fixed on insurer and also for enhancement.

5. It is contended by Smt. P.V.Kalpana, learned Advocate appearing for claimants that Tribunal committed a serious error in absolving the insurer of indemnifying the claim and fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle without considering the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the case laws relied upon by the claimants before the Tribunal in proper perspective and as such Judgment and awards are liable to be modified by fastening the liability on the insurer.

6. It is the contention of Smt.Kalpana that insurer though had raised a plea in the written statement that driver of the alleged vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, insurer did not examine the Regional Transport Officer 01 the Officer from jurisdictional Regional Transport Authority to prove the said plea. She would contend that Official of the Insurance Company, RW-1 is not the competent person who can speak about the nature of driving licence possessed by the driver of offending vehicle and its validity thereof. Hence, she contends that in the absence of competent official speaking about the contents of driving licence, Tribunal could not have accepted the plea of the insurer and contends that this Court ought not to eschew the evidence of R.W. 1 in both the cases. She submits when claimants are third parties they should not be made to suffer by directing them to take recourse to recover the amount awarded by the Tribunal by initiating proceedings against the owner of the offending vehicle, inasmuch as satisfaction of the award by the insurer is a statutory liability as per Section 147(4) and (5) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1938. Hence, insurer cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation to the claima