Insurance companies cannot evade liability if they fail to prove the driver's lack of a valid license and if the vehicle was insured.

JUDGMENT : 

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’] is preferred by the Original Claimants, being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] in M.A.C.P. No. 147 of 2011 [for short ‘Claim Petition’], and restricting the liability of the Insurance Company.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under : -

2.1. The Claimants, who were minor at the time of presenting the Claim Petition, filed the aforesaid Claim through their grandfather. According to the Claimants, their Mother, i.e., Mangalabai, widow of Kacharu Chavan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Deceased’] was a Labourer and succumbed to multiple injuries suffered when the Auto Rickshaw bearing No. MH-38/2934, in which she was travelling on 21.12.2010 for going to Hingoli, turned turtle as the driver was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. The accident was reported to the Hingoli (Rural) Police Station, and a Crime came to be registered against the driver of the Auto. The Deceased was 28 years old and earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of her accidental death. The Appellants were dependent on the Deceased and claimed compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of accident.

2.2. The Claim Petition was contested by the Insurance Company, which was Respondent No. 2 in the Claim Petition, by filling a Written Statement below Exh. 14. The Insurance Company denied the contentions of the Claimants about the rash and negligent driving of the said Auto Rickshaw by its Driver. They came up with a case that the driver of the Auto Rickshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving license, that the Deceased was travelling in the said Auto Rickshaw as a Fair-Paying Passenger, and that the Auto Rickshaw had no valid and effective permit and fitness certificate. The income of the Deceased was denied, and contended that the Claim Petition be dismissed.

2.3. As Respondent No. 1, i.e. the owner of the Auto Rickshaw, did not contest the Claim Petition, the order to proceed ex parte against him came to be passed by the learned Tribunal as seen from Exh.-1.

2.4. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues below Exh.18.

2.5. In support of the Claim Petition, the grandfather of the Claimants examined himself below Exh. 19. He was cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Police Papers and other relevant documents were brought on record by the Claimants.

2.6. The Insurance Company examined its Executive (Legal) below Exh. 31 and he was cross-examined on behalf of the Claimants. A copy of Insurance Policy was broug