IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Insurance Company to prove the negligence of the owner/driver to avoid liability, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. As both these appeals filed by the owner arising out of the same accident, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2013, deceased persons namely Yaduvansh Singh and Sev Kumar went to Ambikapur, P.G. college to attend function and after attending function, they were returning to their village-Phulchuhi on bike and on way near village Sundarpur, the offending vehicle bus (transport vehicle) bearing registration CG-13-Q-0214 being driven by its driver/non-applicant No. 1 Birju Ram in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased persons, as a result of which, they died on the spot on account of injuries received by them. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No. 2 (appellant herein) and insured with non-applicant No. 3/the New India Insurance Company Limited.

3. On account of death of deceased persons-Yaduvansh and Shiv Kumar separate claim petitions have been filed by the legal representatives/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 31,62,000/- (in MACT No. 120/2013) and Rs. 33,38,000/- (in MACT No. 121/2013) under various heads. The Tribunal, considering the evidence led by the parties, awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,77,000/- in MACT No. 120/2013 and Rs. 10,23,000/- in MACT No. 121/2013 with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till realization while fastening the liability on the owner/driver of the offending vehicle with a further direction to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants first and then recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 30.11.2015, non-applicant No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle has filed these appeals challenging the legality and validity of the impugned award.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the owner/driver of the offending vehicle is perverse, illegal & erroneous. He further submits that as per the statement of NAW-1 Ali Raza/owner of the offending vehicle, non-applicant No. 1-Birju Ram/driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and his licence was valid upto 09.03.2015 for driving transport vehicle along with other class of vehicle. He also submits that the finding of Claims Tribunal is merely based on the report of the Commissioner in which Commissioner has recorded the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Bhargav, Staff of RTO, Raipur, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the parties and as per the statement of evidence of Rajesh Kumar Bhargav, Staff of RTO, Raipur, all the entries are computer generated and further according to his statement, driving licence of non-applicant No. 1 Birju was issued on 17.05.1988. The statement of Rajesh Kumar Bhargav further reveals that the record of the same was not available with the office of RTO, Raipur. Therefore, the report of the Commissioner is not reliable. It was next submitted by him that the report of the Commissioner is also not reliable on the ground that on 11.09.2015, when the matter was fixed for examination/cross-examination of witness Rajesh Kumar Bhargav, the Commissioner has, without issuing any notice and further without informing to the parties or their Advocates, declared ex parte on 11.09.2015. The Commissioner report indicates that notice has been issued to the respective parties to appear before the office of RTO, Raipur, however, in the record of the Commissioner as well as that of record of the Claims Tribunal, no such notice is available. It is further contended that it is the primary duty of the Insurance Company to prove the guilty of negligence of owner, but the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its duty. The learned Claims Tribunal has,