The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation first and recover the same from the owner in cases of third-party claims.

JUDGMENT :

SANDESH, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimants in M.V.C.No.463/2016 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.04.2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru questioning the fastening of liability on the respondent No.1-owner and also not considering the dependency of the claimants while awarding compensation.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants are sons and married daughter of the deceased Smt. Obakka. That on 08.08.2015, the deceased Obakka and her daughter were standing on left side of Tumkur-Madhugiri Road in front of Shivaganga Talkies, Koratagere Town and at that point of time, a passenger auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-06-B-6616 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Obakka and her daughter. As a result, the said Obakka and her daughter sustained injuries. The injured Obakka was immediately shifted to District Hospital, Tumkur wherein she took treatment as inpatient and while taking the treatment at about 11.00 p.m. on the same day, she succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants in the claim petition have contended that they have spent more than Rs.25,000/- towards treatment and also spent the amount towards transportation of dead body and funeral ceremony, in all amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is further contended that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was aged about 45 years and was doing vegetable business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As a result of death of deceased Obakka, the claimants have lost earning member of the family.

4. The respondent No.1-owner has filed the written statement denying negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and also avocation and income of the deceased.

5. The respondent No.2-insurance company also filed the written statement contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and permit as on the date of the accident and there was violation of policy conditions. Hence, respondent No.2-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim have examined the second petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P11. The respondent No.1- owner examined himself as R.W.1 and not relied upon any documentary evidence. The respondent No.2 did not choose to examine any of the witnesses.

7. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the claimants have filed the present appeal contending that the trial Judge has committed an error in relying upon the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, though the same has not been proved and the respondent No.2- insurance company has also not examined any witness before the Tribunal. Even though the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the respondent No.1-owner. The respondent No.2 has categorically admitted the issuance of the policy and the deceased was third party. The Apex Court in number of cases has held that the insurance company has to examine the competent persons, in order to prove the fact that there was no valid driving license and permit. It is further contended that, merely because it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and permit, that does not ipso facto prove the case of the respondents without examining either the Investigating Officer or any competent authority. Hence, the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was no valid driving license and permit and fastened the liability on the respondentNo.1-owner which requires interference of this Court.

9. It is also contended in the