IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants have the right to appeal against a tribunal's decision regarding compensation, and insurance companies are liable to indemnify claimants even if the driver lacks a valid license, with the right to recover from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The issue involved in this Appeal is exoneration of the Insurance Company from paying compensation.

2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Tribunal has observed that there was breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licenses on the date of the accident and Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify, which is improper. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that the Claimants cannot be considered as aggrieved party against the Insurance Company as the Claimants are only entitled for compensation in respect of accident caused and they are not suppose to see from whose pocket they are getting compensation. When there was breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy the Tribunal has right to decide who is liable to pay compensation.

4. The learned counsel further submits that as per Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act'), the Claimants cannot be considered as aggrieved party as against the Insurance Company. At the most owner of the offending vehicle can challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to dismiss the Appeal.

5. He relied on Balu Krishna Chavan V/s. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.[Civil Appeal No...... of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No.33638/2017 decided on 3/11/2022] and Biju R. & Ors. V/s. Vivekanandan and Ors.[MACA No.3694 of 2019 of Kerla High Court decided on 22/3/2022]

6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune (for short 'the Tribunal').

7. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the Claimants can challenge the order passed by the Tribunal regarding exoneration of Insurance Company.

8. It is Claimants case that on 23/11/2011 deceased Asha Baviskar was proceedings towards Hadapsar along with Claimant No.1 by riding on the motorcycle, as a pillion rider. Around 7.10 p.m. the motorcycle reached at the place of the accident, at relevant time a truck bearing No.MH-12/FC7059 came in high speed from their backside and started overtaking their motorcycle. In the process of overtaking the motorcycle, the truck dashed the motorcycle. Due to said dash Asha fell on the road and she came under the left rear wheel of the truck. She sustained grievous injuries in the accident. She succumbed to the injuries before the treatment. The offence was registered against the driver of offending truck.

9. The Insurance Company took defense before the Tribunal that driver of offending truck was not holding effective and valid driving licenses at the time of the accident. It has come on record that driving licenses of the driver of offending vehicle was expired on 21/2/2011. While dealing with this issue the Tribunal has observed that driving licenses of the the driver of offending truck had expired four months prior to the date of the accident. There was no Application for renewal of licenses within 30 days.

10. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that Appellants can't be considered as aggrieved party.

11. The Dictionary meaning of aggrieved person is "a person sufficiently harmed by a legal judgment, decree or order to have standing to prosecute an appellate remedy. Sec. 173 of M.V. Act reads as under:-

"(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court."

This Sec. states that any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal can file Appeal. This Sec. empowers that any person can file Appeal so there is no need to consider who is aggrieved person. The Appellants being Claimants have right to file Appeal.

12. It is contention of the learned counsel for Respondent-Claimants that as per view taken by Kerla High Court the person aggrieved i