The insurer cannot evade liability based on a charge-sheet against another vehicle; the Tribunal's findings based on evidence are conclusive.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

The appellant/insurer has filed this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No.2349/2011 dated 13.11.2013 on the file of Fast Track Court-III and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) on the grounds of liability and quantum of compensation.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Claimants being the wife, children and mother of deceased Irshad Ahemad Angolkar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 04.10.2008 at about 21.30 hours near firefighter office on Belagavi-Khanapur road when Irshad Ahemad Angolkar was the inmate of the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 along with two others. Due to this accident, husband of claimant No.1 succumbed to injuries on 07.10.2008 when he was taking on the way to hospital in Bengaluru.

4. The case of claimants in nutshell is that claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of deceased and were fully dependant upon the deceased for their livelihood. They would contend that deceased was running grocery shop at Angol, Belagavi and was self- employed, earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the said business, he was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and hence, claimed compensation under different heads.

5. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1-owner of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 filed his objection statement, wherein he denied the petition averments in toto in respect of the age, occupation of the deceased, the manner in which accident happened and his involvement in causing the accident. He denied the entire case in toto. He further contended that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that claimants are entitled for compensation, then the auto rickshaw in question is insured with respondent No.3 and hence prayed for saddling the liability on respondent No.3 and to dismiss the petition against him.

6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.2-owner of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822 filed his objection statement wherein he denied the petition averments in toto in respect of the age, occupation of deceased, the manner in which accident happened and his involvement in causing the accident. He denied the entire case in toto and further contended that police have filed false charge sheet against him and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Respondent No.3-insurer of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 filed its objection statement, wherein it denied the averments made in petition in toto and further contended that police have filed charge-sheet against driver of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822 and thus, the auto-rickshaw which is insured with it is not involved in the accident. It further took contention that only if the claimants able to establish the involvement of said auto-rickshaw in the accident, then its liability, if any, is subject to the validity or legality of the permit, driving licence of the driver. He is entitled to take defence under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1, two witnesses are examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.12 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.3.

9. After recording evidence of both sides, hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal c