Insurance policies must be adhered to; violations can exempt insurers from liability.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

MFA No.24887/2013 is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act” for short) by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the liability and the claimants have filed MFA No.100132/2014 seeking an enhancement of the compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Tribunal.

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

On 12.12.2010, the deceased Maruti was proceeding as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 25/EE-6150 from Hubballi towards Dandeli. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. When the said motorcycle crossed Alur cross, 6 k.m. towards Dandeli, the rider of the motorcycle lost control over the said motorcycle, and the vehicle went off the road towards rights side, and fell into the right side ditch. As a result, the deceased Maruti sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased Maruti, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking a compensation for the death of Maruti in a road traffic accident.

4. A notice was served on respondent No.1, however, he remained unrepresented, and was placed ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle. Thus, there is a violation of the policy conditions. It is contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, as of the date of the accident. Hence, 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 petitioners, to substantiate their case, Claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the official of the respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. It is held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally, to pay the compensation amount, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with an accrued interest. The Insurance Company, and the claimants, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.346/2011, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the claimants.

9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that three persons were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/EE-6150. The capacity of the motorcycle is only two. He submits that the rider of the motorcycle had violated the policy conditions. He submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the claimants. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that though three persons were proceeding on the motorcycle, and even though there is a viola