The absence of a valid permit for the offending vehicle can impact the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

ORDER :

Since, both the appeals are arising out of the same award dated 31.01.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 03/2016 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, CG, they are being heard and decided by this common order. Parties are referred to their status before the learned Tribunal.

2. MAC No. 281 of 2017 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in his favour by the learned Tribunal.

3. MAC No. 1056 of 2017 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the liability fastened upon it to pay the compensation.

4. Facts of the case in brief is that the claimant who happens to be aged about 54 years met with an accident by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (school bus) bearing registration No. CG 19 F 0171 driven by the driver – Nidhish P.R., owned by the Life Academy School Pakhanjore and insured with the insurance company.

5. Further pleading of the claim application reflects that the claimant suffered 40 % permanent disability and he spent huge amount on his treatment, he remained in hospital for a considerable period of time and total compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- under various heads was claimed by him.

6. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the offending vehicle is registered as a transport vehicle and it is insured with the National Insurance Company and according to the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The driver is holding valid and effective driving license and hence, they may be exonerated from payment of compensation.

7. The insurance company also filed its written statement and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was being driven without any valid permit and fitness which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no disability caused to the claimant and the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle driven by the claimant has not been arrayed as respondents. Hence, on account of non - joinder of necessary parties, application may be rejected. The claimant himself was negligent in causing the accident and there is head on collision between the scooty (motorcycle) and the offending vehicle, hence, principle of contributory negligence would be applicable. In view of the above, the insurance company prayed that it may be exonerated from payment of compensation.

8. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed six issues and decided the same in favour of the claimant, against the insurance company and awarded Rs. 1,37,480/- as compensation. The issue No. 3 was with regard to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which was decided as not proved.

9. Learned counsels for the claimant argued that the income of the deceased is taken to Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on the lower side. The disability to the tune of 40 % was proved by disability certificate of the medical board (Ex. P-24) and the learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing the functional disability to the tune of 13 %. Apart from this, they submit that the compensation awarded on all other heads is also on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement.

10. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference. He further submits that the offending vehicle was driven without any valid permit and fitness. There is a breach on the part of the insured. He further submits that the insurance company has examined the witness from the RTO who has categorically proved that there was no permit of the offending vehicle which is also duly corroborated with the sta