The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants even if the driver of the insured vehicle does not have a valid license, and the determination of just compensation based on the evidence produced on record.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned Advocate Ms. Sayali S. Tekale for the appellants and Mr. A. B. Gatne and Mr. A.S. Osmanpurkar for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company.

2. Both the appeals are identical and arise out of one accident, the claimants are identically placed. The facts and law involved is also identical. Thus, both the appeals are taken up for hearing together.

3. By the present appeals the appellants are challenging the Judgment and award dated 26/03/2010, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.100/2008 and M.A.C.P.No.101/2008, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to allow the claim of the claimants against the opponent No.1 i.e. the owner of the offending insured vehicle and dismissed the claim against the opponent No.2 i.e. the New India Insurance Company Limited. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in each petition, is directed to be paid to the applicants by the opponent No.1 @ of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition until realization minus ‘No fault liability’ amount if any is already paid under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Tribunal by the claimants on two grounds. The first ground is that the liability should be jointly fastened upon the insurance company so also the opponent No.1. Alternatively the Insurance Company should have been directed to pay and recover from the opponent No.1. The second ground is as regards insufficient compensation granted to the claimants.

5. Briefly facts are summarized as under : -

The claimants/appellants in both the petitions are the parents of the deceased Pallavi Dattatraya Undare, aged 14 years and deceased Revati, aged 15 years. Their daughters Pallavi and Revati were friends and were riding bicycle on Washi to Dasmegaon road. A truck No.MH-12/Q-9645 came in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to them. The truck was in a high speed and the deceased Pallavi and Revati sustained multiple grievous injuries on vital parts of the body and died on the spot. Crime No.31/2008 was registered at Washi Police Station against the driver of truck and the driver of the truck was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A, 337, 338 of IPC and 184, 134 (A)(B) of M.V.Act. The claimants/parents of deceased also filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. It is contended in the claim petition that the deceased Pallavi was 14 years of age and learning in 8th standard and while Revati was 15 years of age and learning in 9th standard. The claimant’s daughters died of accidental death in the above accident and the parents claimed compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/-. The claim was resisted by opponent No.2 by filing written statement, whereas the opponent No.1- owner of the vehicle did not appear and contest the claim.

6. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the truck driver was negligent and that the truck was driven in rash and negligent manner, and there was no contribution of any negligence on the part of the cyclists, and as such, the tribunal held that the applicants have established that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing No.MH-12/Q-9645. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the truck was holding LMV licence only at the relevant time and did not hold a licence for driving heavy vehicle, and as such, the liability was only fasten on the opponent No.1- the owner of the truck, and the Insurance Company was absolved from the liability. Against the order passed by the Tribunal absolving the Insurance Company, the present petitions are filed.

7. The learned Advocate Ms. Sayali S. Tekale appearing for the appellants relied upon the Judgment in Shamanna and Another Versus Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 650, and also relied upon the Judgment in S. Iyyapan Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, reported in (