JUDGMENT : - This is an appeal preferred by the original non - applicant no.3 New India Assurance Company against the judgment and award dated 3rd February, 2001 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in Claim Petition No.169 of 1994. By the said judgment and award, the original non - applicant no.2 (owner of the offending vehicle) and non - applicant no.3 (appellant New India Assurance Company) were jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation of Rs.61 ,400/ - along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim till realisation.

2. Aggrieved by the said A ward, original non - applicant no.3 New India Assurance Company has preferred this appeal and challenged the said A ward so far as it relates to joint liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

3. Respondents no.1 to 3 are the legal representatives of deceased Shamrao Wahare who died in a vehicular accident that took place on 24 - 09 - 1994 at village Khutala. Truck bearing registration No.MWR - 4727 is involved in the accident. Respondent no.5 is the owner of the said vehicle and one Mahadeo was driving the said vehicle. Deceased Shamrao was running a tea and pan shop in front of his house near Gram Panchayat Road at village Khutala. While he was sitting in his stall on the said date, the offending vehicle dashed against his stall as a result of which stall collapsed on the head of Shamrao causing him fatal injuries to which Shamrao succumbed. Appellant Insurance Company has not disputed age and income of the deceased and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. The respondent no.1 adduced evidence of only one witness. The Insurance Company adduced evidence of one witness, viz. Anil Wasni. The owner of vehicle did not enter into witness box though he resisted the claim of the claimant by filing Written Statement.

5. The appellant Insurance Company in its Written Statement filed before the Tribunal pleaded, inter - alia, that the driver of the vehicle did not have valid vehicle driving licence and hence, there was breach of the policy condition and the corollary is that the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to anyone in respect of the accident referred to in the claim petition. The Tribunal negatived the claim of the Insurance Company on the ground that the Insurance Company, failed to adduce evidence to prove that the driver of the truck was not having valid licence. After assessing the evidence on record, the impugned Award came to be passed by the Tribunal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for appellant - Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. None appears for respondent no.5.

7. In view of the· arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the only short question that arises for consideration is, whether on facts and evidence on record, the appellant - Insurance Company is entitled to recover insured amount paid to the third party - respondents no.1 to 3 or not.

8. The Insurance Company has taken stand that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid licence and hence there was breach of the policy condition. The insurance policy is at exhibit - 42. One of the conditions of the policy is that any person including insured is entitled to drive provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. In support of its contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time, the appellant Insurance Company has examined its Administrative Officer Shri. Anil Wasnik at exhibit - 50. He stated that driver of truck was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is to be noted that driver Mahadeo was prosecuted by Police Station, Chimpur for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 338 and·427 of the I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document