1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Anantnag (the District and Sessions Judge) awarded compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- with 6% interest less by the amount paid by way of interim relief w.e.f. the date of institution of the claim on 15-03-1980 till the amount is deposited in the court with condition that half the amount of interest awarded shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle- Respondent No. 3. This award is under challenge in this appeal filed by the United India Insurance Co. the insurer.

2. The facts necessary for out purposes briefly stated are that one Mohammad Yaqoob Rather, a Lecturer in Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, died due to vehicular accident on 04-11-1979 at Village Buchroo Tehsil Kulgam, when he was hit by vehicle bearing Registration mark and number JKB-225 driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No.1. The vehicle is alleged to have been under subsisting Insurance on the above date of accident and the Insurance Policy is stated to be issued by the Appellant United India Insurance Co. It merits to be noted that despite the accident having taken place on 04-11-1979, the claim petition was decided only on 16-03-1998, after lapse of over 18 years. The victim in thirtees is succeeded by his four daughters, two sons, widow and mother, though mother died subsequently. The claim was initially lodged with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Srinagar, but subsequently with the establishment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals at Headquarters, this petition was passed on to the Tribunal at Anantnag in June, 1988. After framing the issues, allowing parties to lead evidence, recording parties evidence and hearing the arguments, the claim tribunal awarded in all compensation of RS. 2,40,000/- after applying a multiplier of 12 to the loss of dependency to the claimants and on establishment of the average age to which the victim would have lived/ the period claimants would have depended on the deceased, the lone bread earner of the family.

3 The appellant™s counsel assails the impugned order and award of compensation on various counts. To begin with the counsel contends that the appellant Insurance Co. (Respondent No. 5 before M.A.C.T.) is not at all liable for the reason that no subsisting Insurance Policy issued by the appellant covered the accident in question and death to the Third party as in this case. The claimants have not proved that the vehicle in question was actually covered by any Insurance. The claimants cannot be indemnified for death of the victim Mohammad Yaqoob Rather, as claim liability based on Insurance cover issued by the respondent No. 5, is not at all proved. The counsel further submits that if for a moment the appellant Co. is liable, then the liability of Insurance Co. to third party risk as in this case was only to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, in so far as the Act of 1939 was applicable on the date of accident. The amending Act which deleted the above said limited liability of Insurance Co. in respect of the third party, was not in force on the date of accident, therefore, at the best the liability of the Insurance Co. is to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-.

4. The counsel for claimant/respondents submits that Tribunal has on appreciation of evidence and evaluation of facts and circumstances of the case come to the conclusion that Respondent No. 5 as the Insurer, was liable as the vehicle as also the accident in question was covered by Insurance policy, issued by it. The subsistence of Insurance on the material date was found by the Tribunal after referring to the facts and circumstances of the case and case law on the subject. The appellant™s contention to the contrary is not based on any evidence. Instead it is only an attempt to shift the burden of proof which clearly lay on the Insurance Co. After the claimants placed sufficient facts and material on records to show that the vehicle covered by the Insurance, it was for the Insurance Co. to produce and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document