Liability for compensation can be attributed to the motorcycle owner despite an unlicensed rider, affirming that insurance policy breaches do not negate injury claims from negligent behavior.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 27.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1794/2011 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. On 21.04.2011, the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-24/K-6271 as a pillion rider towards Salapur village, and one Basappa Adiveppa Jadar was riding the motorcycle. He was riding the motorcycle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, lost the control over the motorcycle and dashed to the road side stone, and caused accident. Due to the impact, the petitioner and the said Basappa Jadar sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. A Notice was issued to the owner of the motorcycle. Despite the service of a notice, owner of the motorcycle remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte.

5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the offending motorcycle was not insured with the insurance company at the material date of accident and that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions and 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 his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. In rebuttal, the officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 27.11.2012.

8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this instant appeal.

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

10. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner met with an accident, and sustained a grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P5. The Tribunal has recorded its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, however, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. He also submits that the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company. The Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company, and allowed the claim petition in part. On the contrary, the claim petition was dismissed in its entirety. He also submits that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident, and there is a contract between the insurance company and the owner. He therefore, submits that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner by paying the compensation to