The court reaffirmed that insurance liability exists unless explicitly breached, and compensation should be aligned with the injuries sustained, as evidenced by medical documentation.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

These Miscellaneous First Appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 28.06.2018 passed in MVC Nos.175/2016 and 176/2016 by the learned Member MACT-III, Bagalkot.

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

On 12.09.2015, the petitioners in MVC Nos.175/2016 and 176/2016 were returning to their house from their work, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/4693 ridden by its rider, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioners. As a result, they sustained grievous injuries and they have filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , seeking for a compensation.

3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the rider of the vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the owner.

4. The insurance company field a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the insurance company.

5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the separate issues and recorded the common evidence.

6. The petitioner in MVC No.176/2016 was examined as PW.1 and the petitioner in MVC No.175/2016 was examined as PW.2 and examined the Doctor as PW.3 and marked 19 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-19. In rebuttal, the official of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and also examined the RTO officer as RW.2 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner in MVC No.175/2016 and Rs.1,98,320/- to the petitioner in MVC No.176/2016 with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realization, and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount awarded in the aforesaid claim petitions.

8. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed MFA Nos.100163/2019 and 100165/2019 and the insurance company filed appeals in MFA Nos.103516/2018 and 103517/2018.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the insurance company.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He also submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, he prays to allow the appeals filed by the petitioners and dismiss the appeals filed by the insurance company.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the rider of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. She contends that the insurance company examined the RTO official as RW.2, who has deposed that the rider of the motorcycle was possessing a LMV (Non- transport) license. She submits that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license and the Tribunal without considering the said aspect has fa