IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured if the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, and that compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be calculated based on the criteria provided in the 2nd Schedule of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed award dated 19.11.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Claim Petition MACT No. 60 of 2011.

2. Sh. Neelmani (now deceased), was the original petitioner in MAC Petition No. 60 of 2011 before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”), seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “the Act”) on account of the death of his son Sh. Arvind Kumar.

3. As per case set-up in the claim petition, it was averred that Arvind Kumar was driving vehicle No. HP-73-5005 on 21.05.2011, which met with an accident resulting in the death of Arvind Kumar. The occupation of deceased was stated to be agriculturist and driver. His income was claimed at Rs.3,300/- per month. The vehicle belonged to respondent No. 2 herein (for short “the owner”). It was also alleged that deceased Sh. Arvind Kumar was 19 years old at the time of his death. The death was stated to be instantaneous on spot.

4. The owner filed reply and admitted the averments made in the petition to the extent that the deceased was employed as driver by respondent No. 2. The cause of accident was also admitted to be the emergence of mechanical defect. It was also admitted that deceased was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. As per the owner, he had employed the deceased as driver after verifying the fact that the deceased held and possessed a driving license.

5. The insurer contested the claim petition on the ground that the deceased was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and thus, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. Rest of the averments made in the claim petition were denying.

6. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues-

(1) Whether deceased Arvind Kumar died on account of the use of vehicle bearing No. HP-73-5005 on 21.05.2011 at about 7:00 AM near Ghoga More? OPP.

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

(3) Whether the driver of the vehicle (i.e. deceased) was not holding a valid and an effective driving license as alleged if so, to what effect? OPR.

(4) Relief.

Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative, whereas issue No. 3 was decided in negative. The petition was accordingly allowed and compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

8. Learned Senior Counsel representing the insurer/appellant has laid challenge to the findings recorded by learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 in the first instance. He contended that the findings on issue No. 3 are perverse being against the facts proved on record. It was submitted that the document, Ext. PE, was the extract of family register on which the claimant himself had placed reliance. He asserted that according to this document, the date of birth of deceased Arvind Kumar was 26. 11.1993, therefore, the deceased Arvind Kumar had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of his death i.e. 21.05.2011. Reference was made to Section 4 of the Act, which prohibits the driving of a vehicle by a person under the age of 18 years. Sub-section 3 of Section 4 further prohibits the issuance of learner or driving license unless he is eligible to drive the vehicle. On the basis of such submission, it has further been contended that when the deceased Arvind Kumar was not eligible to drive the vehicle or to get a license to drive, there could have been no possibility of valid driving license being held by him and any license allegedly held by him could not be said to be valid.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the insurer further submitted that the assumption drawn by learned Tri