JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the judgment of IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7) in MVC No.2835/2012 dated 27.01.2015.

2. On 09.12.2011, at about 8.15 p.m., the deceased Louis Joseph was riding a Luna slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road on Ayyappa Swamy Cross Road junction of the Nala Road, observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that time, a Canter Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1688 driven by its driver came in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and dashed against the Luna from behind, due to which, he fell down and sustained severe head injuries as also injuries to the whole body. He was immediately shifted to St.Philomena Hospital, Bangalore, wherein the doctor declared him as dead at 8.50 p.m. The deceased was working at Williams Bakery Private Limited, Bangalore as Kitchen Helper and claimed to be receiving salary at a sum of Rs.10,000/-p.m., as also he was operating novelty store in the afternoon and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. there from. The wife of the deceased who is the appellant herein had approached the Tribunal seeking for compensation on account of the above accident and the death of her husband resulting there from.

3. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that though the vehicle and RTC stands in the name of respondent No.1, taking into consideration the evidence led by respondent Nos.1 and 2 wherein respondent No.1 had produced documents to establish the transfer/sale of the offending vehicle to respondent No.2 and having come to the conclusion that there are multiple violation of insurance policy, the offending vehicle not having a permit and not having a fitness certificate, had imposed the penalty on respondent No.2 – purchaser even though the formal transfer of registration had not occurred in favour of the respondent No.2. It is on this basis the Tribunal discharged the liability of the Insurance Company and imposed the same on the de facto owner of the vehicle viz., respondent No.2 even though de jure owner continued to be respondent No.1. The Tribunal considering the matter has awarded the compensation of Rs.7,75,100/-along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment on the following heads :

4. The appellant is before this Court contending that the quantum of compensation which has been awarded is incorrect. The proper income of the deceased has not been taken into account and as also contending that the liability ought to have been imposed upon the Insurance Company inasmuch as the violation by respondent Nos.1 and 2 would not absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to the appellant, who is a third party.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that it is not known as to who has paid the insurance premium insofar as insurance policy is concerned. He further submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured on the following grounds:

i. The insurance policy which has been issued in the name of respondent No.1 – RC holder is stated to commence from 14.55 hours on 10.12.2011 and being in operation till 09.12.2012. The accident having occurred at 8.15 p.m., on 09.12.2011, policy had not come into effect and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation under the said policy.

ii. There is a violation of applicable statutory enactment in terms of there being no permit to ply a goods vehicle. The said permit hav