The central legal point established in the judgment is the insurance company's liability to indemnify the claimant and the right to recover the amount from the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 02.04.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux), Ahmedabad (Rural), in MACP No. 805 of 2004, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal

2.1 That the accident occurred on 06.10.2003 near Mahalaxmi Char Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad City. As per the record, it is the case of the claimant that he was travelling in rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ1XX3415 from Geeta Mandir to his house and when the rickshaw was passing near Mahalaxmi Char Rasta, the driver of the rickshaw lost control over the steering and the rickshaw turned turtle because of which the respondent-original claimant sustained serious injuries.

2.2 As can be seen from the record, the original claimant was admitted to V.S. Hospital for treatment as he had sustained fracture on his left leg. The FIR came to be lodged and the respondent-claimant filed present claim petition under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/.

2.3 The respondent-claimant was examined at exhibit 17 and the respondent-claimant also relied upon the documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 19, panchnama of the place of incident at exhibit 20. The Insurance Company also filed its written arguments at exhibit 42. It was the case of the original claimant that he was aged 23 years old on the date of the accident and was engaged in the business of cloths and was earning Rs. 4,500/ per month. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/ per month as no evidence was produced and as per the purshis at exhibit 24, disability of the body as a whole was determined at 12% and applying multiplier of 17, an amount of Rs. 61,200/ was awarded under the head of Future Economic Loss. Similarly, considering the evidence in form of disability certificate Exhibits 23 and 24, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/ under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 29,000/ as medical expenses and Rs. 7,500/ under the head of actual loss of income and Rs. 8,000/ under the head of special diet, attendant and transportation charges. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.1,17,700/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

3. Heard Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahendra U. Vora, learned advocate for respondent no.1original claimant. Though served, no on appears for respondent no.2.

4. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the rickshaw driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license. Relying upon the deposition of the Transport Officer at Exhibit 38, it was contended by Mr. Shelat that the driver of the rickshaw was not holding license to drive transport vehicle at the time of accident and relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Ors. reported in 2008(8) SCC 253 and the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai reported in 2006(4) SCC 250, it was contended that the appellant insurance company deserves to be exonerated. Mr. Shelat further contended that even as per the evidence on record, the driver of rickshaw had learner license and therefore, he was not authorised to carry any passenger in the rickshaw. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Shelat contended that the insurance company deserves to be exonerated by allowing this appeal.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mahendra Vora, learned advocate for the respondent no.1original claimant supported the impugned judgment and award and has submitted that the appeal is meritless and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocate appearing for the parties.

7. I have perused the original Rec