The court emphasized the importance of proving the validity of the insurance policy and upheld the principle that the insurer must prove any breach of policy terms to seek exoneration.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Both these appeals are the outcome of one award, dated 28th February, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.33 of 2005, titled Parveen Kumar vs. Sunil Kumar and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.67,400/-, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). Accordingly, both the appeals are taken up together for final disposal.

2. FAO No.289 of 2009 has been filed by the claimant Parveen Kumar for enhancement of compensation, while the insurer has laid challenge to the impugned award by filing FAO No.421 of 2009.

3. Facts of the case giving rise to the present appeals are summarized thus. On 20th April, 2003, Claimant Parveen Kumar, alongwith one Manmohan, was traveling on a scooter bearing No.HP-19-2297, and at about 11.45 a.m., when they reached at village Chanari near Silver Factory, a Tata Sumo bearing No.PB-07E-7213, which was driven by Sunil Kumar (original respondent No.1) rashly and negligently, hit the scooter, resulting into injuries to the claimant Parveen Kumar. An FIR bearing No.57 of 2003, dated 21st April, 2003, was registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition.

4. The Claim Petition was resisted by the respondents by filing replies.

5. The Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondent? OPP

3-A Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so, its effect? OPR2

4. Whether the vehicle was being plied at the time of accident against the terms of the insurance policy and so respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1? OPR

5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

6. Relief.”

6. In order to prove his case, the claimant-injured has examined PW-1 Rachhpal Singh, PW-2 Dr. Ashish Lekhi, PW-3 Agya Ram and PW-4 Vijay Singh. The claimant also stepped into the witness box as PW-5. On the other hand, respondents have examined three witnesses, namely, Karam Chand (RW-1) and Kulwant Kaur (RW-2). Sunil Kumar (driver-cum- owner) has appeared as RW-3.

7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, allowed the claim petition, as detailed above.

8. Feeling aggrieved the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with the liability inasmuch as the owner had committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, (subject matter of FAO No.421 of 2009). On the other hand, the claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, (subject matter of FAO No.289 of 2009).

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award.

10. In order to determine the controversy, I deem it proper to discuss each issue separately.

Issue No.1

11. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence led by the parties, held that the claimant-injured has proved that Original Respondent No.1 Sunil Kumar had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. Even otherwise, the said findings are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld.

Issue No.3 and 5

12. Before dealing with the other