The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company's liability in a motor vehicle accident is not absolved by the non-wearing of a helmet by the deceased or the expiry of the fitness certificate or permit, as long as the driver had a valid driving license.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The insurance company has preferred this appeal, assailing the judgment and award dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Ron, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.72/2016 on the ground of liability as well as quantum.

2. The claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.51,00,000/- on account of death of one Ashok S/o Durgappa Hadimani, who died in a fatal road traffic accident on 14.7.2015, when the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing chassis No.MBLHA10AMEHM74456, the driver of the Mahindra Maximo bearing registration No. KA-37/9869 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and due to the impact of the accident the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the injuries during treatment. It is averred that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was working as an agriculturist and also was working as a Hamal in APMC Yard and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. from agricultural and Rs.5,000/- by doing Hamali in APMC Yard. The claimants are the wife, child and parents of the deceased, it is averred that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and the claimants were solely dependent upon the income of the deceased.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served with the notice, did not appear and were placed exparte. Respondent No.3insurance company appeared and filed their objections.

4. Respondent No.3-Insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA37/9869 did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive a particular type of vehicle. It is also averred that the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, were not satisfied and the alleged vehicle was used as a hire or reward on the date of the accident violating the terms of the Insurance Policy and the fitness certificate of the said vehicle had expired as on the date of the accident and thus, sought to absolve the liability.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following:

1. Whether the petitioners being the legal representatives of Late. Ashok S/o. Duragappa Hadimani, prove that the said Ashok S/o. Duragappa Hadimani, was died, consequent upon the motor vehicle accident that took place on 14.07.2015 at about 1.00 p.m. on B. HosalliHyati road, near Hyati Village of Koppal Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Maximo bearing Reg. No.KA37/9869 being driven by its drive in an actionable claim?

2. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that the drive of the alleged vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?

4. What order or award?

6. In order to substantiate their claim the claimant No.1wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of respondents, respondent No.3Senior Assistant of the company examined himself as RW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.R1 and Ex.R2.

7. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Maximo bearing registration No.KA37/9869 and also held that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license to drive the particular type of vehicle as on the date of the accident and held that the expiry of the fitness certificate or the permit will not absolve the liability of the Insurance company and thus, fastened the liability on the Insurance company and awarded compensation of R