Insurer liable for compensation despite fake driving licence unless it proves owner was aware of fakeness and still permitted driver to drive; owner need not verify licence authenticity from issuing authority if appears genuine.

JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, Judge

The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/ Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”), against the award dated 01.08.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in MAC Petition No.85-MAC/2 of 2009, with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,70,000/- on account of death of Shri Rajneesh Kumar, who was husband of petitioner/ respondent No.1 and son of petitioner/respondent No.2 and father of petitioners/respondents No.3 and 4. It was averred by the petitioners that on 25.07.2009, Rajneesh Kumar (deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-18A-4833 to his home from Paonta Sahib and when he reached at place Dhaulakaun at about 8:30 AM, one tipper bearing registration No.HP17A-8334, being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, came on the wrong side and hit against his motorcycle, as a result of which, he suffered fatal injuries and died on the way to PGI, Chandigarh.

3. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, the deceased was 33 years old and he was working as an Accountant in Sirmaur Milk Products at village Makkarwala and was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. He was also earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from the agriculture. The offending vehicle was owned by one Ravi Dutt Sharma (respondent No.6 herein) and it was insured with National Insurance Company (appellant herein). It was also averred that the deceased used to look-after and maintain his family and he was the only earning member in the family. Hence, the petitioners sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,70,000/-.

4. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle (respondents No.5 & 6 herein) in their reply to the claim petition raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and non-jonder of necessary parties. On merits, it has been averred that the accident was caused by the deceased himself, who could not control his motorcycle and fell down on the road. They further averred that no accident had taken place by with their vehicle.

5. In the reply filed by respondent No.3/ National Insurance Company, preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability, driver of the truck was not having a valid and effective driving licence, the truck was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy. On merits, it was averred that the deceased himself was responsible for this accident and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also averred that the instant petition was filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2, 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 08.07.2011:-

“1. Whether Rajneesh died in motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by respondent No.1 on 25.07.2009 at 8:30 AM at village Dhaulakuan, as alleged? OPP

2. In case issue No.1 is determin