1. These Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeals preferred by the Insurance Company arise out of an award dated 31-1-2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban in favour of respondents No.1 to 6, herein, who were the claimants before the Tribunal. Mehboob Ahmed and his wife Mst. Shakila Begum were traveling in Bus No. JK02 5355 which met with an accident on 5-6-2000 at Maruti, Tehsil Gandoh. Both of them sustained serious injuries and died as a result of the accident. The deceased, predecessor in interest of the claimants was 45 years of age and their mother was 40 years of age. Both of them were working as Safiawalas in Ramban Hospital. Deceased Mehboob Ahmed was earning Rs. 5000/- PM whereas Shakila Begum was earning Rs. 4000/- PM.

2. The Insurance Company, present appellant on being served before the Tribunal resisted the claim on variety of grounds:

(i) that the claim petition is in-complete and discloses no cause of action;

(ii) that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited within the ambit and scope of the policy of Insurance and cannot be held liable beyond the ambit, scope and conditions of the policy. It has also denied the knowledge of the accident. Further additional pleas were raised that the insurance company reserves the right to defend the action for insured owner and driver when the occasion arises.

(iii) that the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay any compensation if the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident;

(iv) the insurance Company is also not liable to pay compensation if the offending vehicle is being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of route permit or fitness.

3. As regards the factual averments made in the petition from paras 17 to 22 the same were denied for want of personal knowledge. However, copy of the insurance policy was placed on record by the insured/appellant.

The Tribunal framed following three issues: -

1. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the face of preliminary objections and additional pleas raised by respondent No.2? OPR-2

2. Whether Shakila Begum W/O Mehboob Ahmed R/O Maitra Ramban, aged 40 years, worked as Safaiwali, earning Rs. 4000/- a month, had died on 5-6-2000 at Gandoh Bhalesha, while traveling in Vehicle No. JK01D 5355, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, as a result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, holding valid driving licence? OPP

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP.

4. The claimant examined three witnesses Mushtaq Ahmed. Hamid Khan, Bahar Din, whereas no evidence was led by the respondents in the claim petition including the appellant herein. The trial of the petitions culminated into passing of the impugned award where-under an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of death of Mst. Shakila Begum, whereas Rs. 4,16,000/- and funeral expenses were awarded on account of death of Mehboob Ahmed. Both the claims were allowed with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. The share of the minor was directed to be deposited in their name till they attain the majority.

5. Aggrieved of the afore-said award the Insurance Company has preferred these appeals. These appeals are against a common judgment passed by the Tribunal.

6. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has sought the setting aside of the impugned judgment/award of the Tribunal on the following grounds: -

(1) Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has not been proved and no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company unless the negligence is establish;

(2) Liability of the insured i.e. the owner of the vehicle has not been fixed and consequently the Insurance Company cannot be made liable.

(3) FIR relied upon has not been proved in evidence and thus the findings regarding accidents are perverse.

(4) The bus was over-loaded which is a violation of the Insurance policy and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document