Act policy excludes coverage for pillion rider on two-wheeler as gratuitous passenger; LMV (NT) licence invalid for motorcycle; insurer exonerated, owner liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant-The New Indian Assurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”), against the award dated 08.08.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Claim Petition No.37/2012, with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award.

2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioners (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of Sheweta Thakur, who was wife of petitioner No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) and mother of petitioner No.2 (respondent No.2 herein). It was averred by the petitioners that on 25.05.2012, Sheweta Thakur (deceased) was coming to her house on the motorcycle bearing registration No.HP58A-0361, being driven by respondent No.1 (respondent No.3 herein) and when the said motorcycle reached near Kai Gompa, respondent No.1 lost control over the same due to his rash and negligent driving and met with an accident, as a result of which, Sheweta Thakur sustained injuries. She was taken to Regional Hospital, Kullu, where she died due to the injuries sustained by her.

3. As per the petitioners, at the time of her death, the deceased was 28 years old and she was a house wife. She used to grow vegetables and was also selling milk and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and it was insured with respondent No.2/ New India Assurance Company (appellant herein). Hence, the petitioners sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,70,000/-.

4. The driver/ owner of the offending vehicle, in his reply to the claim petition raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability. On merits, it has been averred that the accident did not cause due to his rash and negligent driving .

5. In the reply filed by respondent No.2/ Insurance Company, preliminary objections were taken that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy. On merits, it was averred that the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Rules and insurance policy, thus, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 08.11.2012:-

“1. Whether late Smt. Sweta had died in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP

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

3. Whether the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-2

4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence? OPR-2

5. Relief.”

After parties led their evidence, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioners were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,89,068/- alongwith interest and the insurance company (appellant herein) was directed to indemnify the owner of the motorcycle.

7. Feeling aggrieved/dissatisfied, the appellant/ insurance company preferred the instant appeal against award dated 08.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to se