The court clarified that insurer remains liable despite alleged license violations and that proper evaluation of compensation must consider future income potential and dependency of family members.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) challenging the judgment and award dated 18^th September 2013, passed by the XIX Addl.Small Causes Judge, MACT and XLI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (SCCH-17), (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.5131/2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 24.06.2012, the deceased Irshad Khan, who was the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-2552, was proceeding from Doddaballapur towards Yelahanka. When he was crossing the road near Nagenahalli Gate in front of Shanimahathma Temple, he stopped the lorry to give tappal papers to the Sales Tax Officer, at that time, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-03-AA-2836, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot.

4. It is further the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident; He was the driver of the lorry and earning Rs.15,000/- per month; Claimants are the wife, sons and parents of the deceased; They were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1-insurer filed written statement denying the contentions of the claimants. It also denied that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of driver of the car and denied its liability to pay the compensation.

6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

7. The claimants to prove their case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. The respondents have examined one witness as RW-1 and marked three documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3.

8. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded the following compensation:

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer has preferred the present appeal.

9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contended that the deceased was a professional driver and he knows how to cross the road, however, in this case, he was negligently crossing the road, at the time of the incident. This clearly indicates that due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred.

11. It is further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. There is no basis for the assessment of the income of the deceased. Amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads are on the higher side.

12. It is further submitted that the driver of the car was not holding effective and valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. As per the policy, it was a transport vehicle, however, the driver was not holding the license to drive light motor vehicle (Transport). Under these circumstances, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. With these reasons, prayed to modify the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the findings of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

14. Following questions