IMPORTANT POINT
The burden to prove the existence of a driving license lies with the driver and owner of the vehicle. The insurer is obligated to indemnify the insured only if the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are not violated.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant appeal has been filed against award dated 28.03.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan in MAC Petition No. 63-MAC/2 of 2007, whereby respondent No.1 has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum and the liability has been fastened on the appellant/insurer.

2. Respondent No.1 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “The Act”) for grant of compensation with the averments that on 10.05.2005 respondent No.1 was on board vehicle No. HP-18A-0201 and was travelling from Ambala to Nahan. At place near Chotti Bassi, a bus bearing No. CH-03B-1215 came from opposite side and hit the vehicle No. HP-18A-0201 causing injuries to respondent No.1. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The offending bus was stated to be owned by respondent No.3 and insured by the appellant. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were impleaded as party-respondents, being owner and insurer of the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling.

3. Respondent No.1 claimed compensation by alleging his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 further claimed himself to be 44 years of age. It was averred that FIR No. 83 dated 10.05.2005 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC was registered at Police Station, Naraingarh against respondent No.2.

4. Respondent No.1 further claimed to have suffered disability and on such premise, claimed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-as compensation.

5. The owner of the bus i.e. respondent No.3 filed his response. It was alleged that respondent No.1 himself was driving vehicle No. HP-18A-0201 and cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 himself. It was also submitted that bus No. CH-03B-1215 was comprehensively insured with the appellant.

6. The driver of the bus i.e. respondent No.2 adopted the reply filed on behalf of the owner of the bus/respondent No.3.

7. The appellant filed its separate reply and besides other objections alleged that the vehicle at the time of accident was being plied in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was specifically alleged that the driver of bus No. CH-03B-1215 was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

8. Respondents No. 4 and 5 also filed their reply, but their stand will not be relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal as even learned Tribunal has not fastened any liability on said respondents and learned counsel for the appellant has also not pressed any relief against them.

9. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicles accident which happened on 10.5.2005 at Chhoti Bassi, allegedly on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP

2. In case No.1 is determined in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver, respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time, as alleged? OPR-3

4. Whether the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3

5. Whether the accident occurred on account of composite negligence of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 while driving their respective vehicles at the relevant time? OPR-3

6. Whether the driver of vehicle No. HP-18-A-0201 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged? OPR-5

7. Whether the petitioner was travelling as gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, as alleged OPR-5

8. Relief.

10. Issues 1, 2 and 5 were decided in affirmative. Remaining issues were decided in negative and the petition was allowed by awarding a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation in favour of respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

11. I have heard learned counsel fo