Insurance companies cannot evade liability when authorized passengers are involved and coverage applies, reinforcing the need for proper assessment of compensation based on actual income and disability.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

1. These appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short), which arise out of the judgment and award dated 31.01.2013 passed in MVC No.1006/2012 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Belgaum.

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

3. On 28.07.2011, the petitioner was carrying the goods in an ape Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-24/5262. The driver of the Auto rickshaw drove the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner; as a result, the ape auto rickshaw toppled. Due to the impact, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has spent a huge amount on medical and the other expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The owner of the vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the Auto rickshaw possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was valid. It is contended that in case the Tribunal concludes that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, a direction be issued to the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioner travelled as an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle. There is a breach of the policy conditions. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that no special premium was paid to cover the risk of death or bodily injury of the passenger. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The petitioner, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.2, examined 3 witnesses as PWs 1, 3 and 4, and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 to R2. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 31.01.2013 and awarded the compensation of Rs 1,46,000/- to the petitioner. The owner and the insurance company were held jointly and severally liable and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount.

8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1006/2012, preferred an appeal in MFA No.23710/2013 challenging the liability, and the petitioner, in MVC No.1006/2012, preferred an appeal in MFA No.101400/2014, seeking an enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the petitioner travelled as an unauthorized passenger. He submits that there is a breach of the policy conditions. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner. To