The court held that the insurance company must initially pay compensation for accidents involving breach of policy conditions before recovering amounts from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and fastening of liability, have filed these appeals against the common judgment and award dated 04.01.2013 passed in MVC Nos.274 and 275 of 2005 by the learned Fast Track Court and Additional MACT, Gadag (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

3. On 23.05.2005, the petitioners and Heerasa Revansa Meharwade, were traveling in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-25/M3936. The driver of the Tata Sumo was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control on the vehicle and as a result, it turtle down by the side of the road. The petitioners and Heerasa sustained grievous injuries and Heerasa succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of the Heerasa filed a claim petition in MVC No.274/2025 seeking compensation on account of death of Heerasa. The petitioner in MVC No.275/2005 sustained injuries and filed said the claim petition. The other inmates have also filed the claim petitions.

4. Notice was issued and despite the service of notice, respondent no.1-the owner of the offending vehicle, remained unrepresented and was placed exparte.

5. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions. It is contended that as of the date of accident, the driver of the Tata Sumo was not possessing a valid and effective driving license and contended that there was a violation of policy condition and the petitioners and inmates were traveling as paid passengers. As such, clearly, there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the Tata Sumo in question. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, clubbed all the claim petitions and framed the separate issues.

7. The petitioners were examined themselves as PW-1 to PW-4 and examined the doctor as PW-5 and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-15. The officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.D-1.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,88,000/- in MVC No. 274/2005 and Rs. 68,400/- in MVC No. 275/2005 with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal directed him to deposit the compensation amount.

9. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed these appeals.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners in MFA No.23194/2013 submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and he also submitted that the tribunal instead of deducting 1/4^th has deducted 1/3^rd and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. It is further contended that the Tribunal has fastened the liability only on the owner of the offending vehicle without there being any material documents placed to show that the inmates of the offending vehicle were fair paid passengers in the offending vehicle. It is contended that the insurance company has failed to prove that the inmates of the vehicle were the paid passengers. Hence on these grounds, he prays to allow the