JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), by which, the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay the Rs.6,67,252/- with cost and interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application.

2. Brief Facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 On 21.05.2005 at about 9 p.m., Mr. Kanubhai Parmar, while going on his scooter bearing registration No. GJ-6-KK-2503 met with an accident with Motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-6-BE-4040, that was being driven on wrong side, without blowing any horn and without giving any signal. It was head on collision, due to that accident, deceased-Kanubhai Parmar fell down and taken to the Unity hospital, Vadodara. On 26.05.2005, after getting medical treatment, he scummed to the injuries in the hospital. Therefore, the FIR was filed against opponent No. 1. As per the claim petition, deceased-Kanubhai-Parmar was 40 years old at the time of the accident, working as Supervisor in Yash Construction Company and earning 4,000/- p.m. As per the claimant, they have spent Rs.1,30,000/- for treatment of deceased, therefore, they have filed claim petition before the Tribunal to get the compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.2 The Tribunal issued notices to the opponents. Opponent No. 1 did not appear. Opponent No.2 – Insurance Company appeared through its advocate and filed written statement at Ex. 12, contending that the averments made in the claim petition are not correct and it has disputed the age, income and occurrence of accident. It was also contended by the opponent No. 2- Insurance Company that the deceased was himself liable for the accident and respondent No. 1 did not possess driving license, therefore, Insurance-Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation, as prayed by the claimants.

2.3 The Tribunal framed issues at Ex. 50. The witnesses were examined like Kokilaben at Ex. 19, Jikabhai Maganbhai Gohil at Ex. 29, Naginbhai Godalal Shah at Ex. 30. Documentary evidences were also produced like FIR at Ex. 21, Panchnama at Ex. 22 PM Report at Ex. 23, bills of hospital and medical treatment at Ex. 24 to 26 and Salary Certificate at Ex. 31. Opponent No. 2 – Insurance Company has also examined the witness-Harish C. Parajapati at Ex. 44, who is driver of motorcycle insured by appellant, Officer of the RTO, Mumbai- Ashok B. Chauhan at Ex. 48, Officer of the Insurance Company at Ex. 51, Officer of the RTO, Bharuch at Ex. 63 and had also produced various documentary evidences like investigation Report at Ex. 38, driving license at Ex. 39, Insurance Policy at Ex. 41, driving license of opponent No. 1 at Ex. 46 and copy of Policy at Ex. 55, copy of R.C. Book at Ex. 34 and other documents on record.

2.4 After considering the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal has decided the claim petition after hearing the submissions of the respective advocates and has awarded Rs.6,67,252/- with 7.5% interest p.a from the date of application to the claimants and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are held liable jointly and severally. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, opponent No. 2 – Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

3. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the driver of the other vehicle is not holding valid and effective driving license. He has submitted that the documentary evidence along with the copy of RTO letter etc., are produced and various officers from the RTO have also been examined by the Insurance Company and according to the fact that the license produced by the respondent No. 1 is fake. When the Opponent No. 1 raised the claim before the Insurance Company about the damage of his scooter at that point of time, the Insurance Company came to know about the license and it is foun