The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the insurance company to take coercive steps to establish the lack of a valid driving license for the driver, and the principles for computing compensation, including loss of dependency and filial affection.

JUDGMENT :

V. Srishananda, J.

1. Though these matters are listed for admission today, with the consent of both the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal.

2. The Appeal and the MFA CROB are arising out of impugned judgment and award dtd. 29/11/2012 passed in MVC No. 171/2012, on the file of the Fast Track at Athani.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Appeal and MFA CROB are as under: A claim petition came to be filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that on 1/9/2011 at about 7.30 p.m., when the deceased Sunil Mahaveer Langoti along with her sister Sunita were proceeding as pedestrians on Siddewadi-Kavalgudd Road near kannada School, Siddewadi, a Mahindra Tractor bearing No. KA23/TB-1571 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Sunil Mahaveer Langoti whereby he sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries in Dr.Anand Kulkarni Hospital, Athani. The claimants being the mother and sisters having lost their bread winner, laid a claim petition for awarding suitable compensation.

4. The claim petition was resisted by filing necessary written statement.

5. The Tribunal raised appropriate issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.5,76,000.00 as the compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company and claimants are in appeal and cross objection.

6. Sri M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses a valid driving licence and a notice came to be issued by the Insurance Company for the owner of the vehicle to produce the driving licence. Despite the service of notice, the owner failed to produce the driving licence of the driver and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that at the most, this Court may order for payment of the adjudged compensation by the Insurance Company at the first instance and thereafter, the Insurance Company be permitted to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in the very same proceedings. Further, he contended that quantum of compensation is on the higher side and sought for re-computation of the quantum of compensation.

7. Per contra, Smt. Archana A. Magadum, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 while supporting the finding of the Tribunal to pay the adjudged compensation by Insurance Company and sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken the proper income and did not add future prospects and did not allow the filial affection and sought for enhancement of compensation.

8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points that would arise for consideration is:

"1. Whether the Insurance Company has made out a case for exoneration of its liability or a direction to pay adjudged compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle?

2. Whether the cross objectors have made out a case for enhancement of compensation?"

9. In the case on hand, the accidental death of Sunil Mahaveer Langoti on 1/9/2011 at about 7.30 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra tractor bearing No. KA-23/TB-1571 stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. No doubt the Insurance Company has issued notice to the owner of the vehicle to produce driving licence of the driver. The said notice though served, the owner did not comply with the calling of the notice. Therefore, the Insurance Company is now seeking exoneration of its liability on the ground that there was no driving licence to the driver the offending vehicle. Mere issuance of notice or witness summons itself would not be suffice to say that the Insuranc