Failure to prove breach of insurance policy terms and conditions relieves the Insurance Company of liability.

JUDGMENT :

1. This First Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Insurance Company (Original Opponent No. 3) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 3 March 2015 passed by the MACT, Solapur in MACP No. 54/2013.

FACTS :

2. On 31 July 2012 at 09:00 a.m., one Mr. Jayant Bagal was proceeding to attend his duty from Kurduwadi on his motorcycle. When he reached near Hotel Vaishali on Kurduwadi Barshi Road, one Indica Car bearing Registration No. MH 09 TC 246 (for short “offending vehicle”), coming from the opposite direction, collided with the motorcycle of Jayant Bagal. In the said accident, Jayant Bagal died on the spot (for short “the deceased”).

3. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (Original Claimants) in the present First Appeal are legal heirs of the deceased, who filed Claim Petition No. MACP No. 54/2013, before the MACT, Solapur, claiming compensation of Rs. 35,50,000/-, with interest at current rate from the date of the accident till realization. The claim petition naratted that, deceased, aged 37 years, was serving as a Civil Engineer and was in permanent employment with Vitthal Corporation Limited, Mhaisgaon, Taluka Madha, Dist. Solapur, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 23,000/-.

4. The Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are owner and driver respectively of the offending vehicle, appeared in the matter and filed their written statement and stated that the deceased was driving at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and as the deceased lost the control of his motorcycle, he turned to the wrong side on the road and dashed against the offending vehicle, therefore there was no fault on part of the driver of the Indica Car.

5. The Appellant herein, being the Insurer of Indica Car, appeared before the MACT, Solapur as Opponent No. 3 and filed its written statement. The Insurer denied the allegations made by the claimants and stated that the Indica Car was driven in moderate speed and it was on the correct side of the road. It was only because the deceased was driving his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, thereby lost control of the motorcycle and dashed his motorcycle to the offending vehicle. It was further stated that the insured Indica Car did not bear Registration on the date of the accident i.e., 31 July 2012 therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

6. On behalf of the Original Claimants, the Claimant No. 1 i.e., the widow of the deceased, entered the Witness Box and gave her evidence. She produced on record the certified copy of the F.I.R. lodged against the driver of offending vehicle, spot panchnama. The Claimant also examined one, Mr. Dnyandeshwar Ganpat Dhanoke, as Witness No. 2 and Bhaskar Abhimanu Ghavane as Witness No. 3. Whereas on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company and the Respondents owner and driver of the offending vehicle, nobody entered the Witness Box to prove their case.

7. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Member, MACT Solapur, passed his Judgment and Award dated 3 March 2015, thereby directing the Appellant Insurance Company, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to jointly and severally pay the total amount of Rs.39,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty-Nine lakhs) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 14 March 2013 till realization, together with cost within two months from the date of the order.

8. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 3 March 2015, the Appellant Insurance Company filed the present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

SUBMISSIONS :

9. Advocate Ms. Harshada Rane appeared on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company and made her submissions.

9.1. Ms. Rane submitted that the offending vehicle was not registered on the date of the accident, therefore, there was a breach of the policy and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay to the Claimants.

9.2. Ms. Rane further submitted that evide