1. These two appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, of the National Insurance Company Ltd., are directed against the awards of June 2, 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rajouri, whereby, allowing Claim Petition nos. 110(c) and 113 (c), the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,42,000/- and Rs.2,44,548/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum, as compensation for the death of Kamelsh Kumari and Simmy Sharma respectively, who had succumbed to the injuries received while travelling in Maruti Van bearing registration no. JK02K/6230 which when driven rashly and negligently by Vinod Kumar, its driver, had rolled down into a stream at Khatanu Morh near Thanda Pani Bridge on May 11, 2003. Appellant-Insurance Company had contested its liability to indemnify the owner of the Maruti Van of the compensation which it was adjudged liable, to pay to the dependents and legal heirs of Kamlesh Kumari and Simmy Sharma, deceased, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri, on the ground that the driver of the Maruti Van was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident and the Vehicle had been driven loaded with passengers beyond its seating capacity of 4 plus 1 at the time of the accident, and in this view of the matter, the appellant was not liable to satisfy the claim in terms of the Insurance policy. The quantum of compensation, too, had been objected to by the appellant-Insurance Company.

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after examining and appreciating the evidence which the claimants had produced to support their claims, allowed the Claim Petitions, as mentioned, at the threshold, rejecting appellant-Companys defence to indemnification, holding that it had failed to prove that the driver of Maruti Van was not holding valid driving license and the vehicle was overloaded at the time of the accident.

3. Appellants learned counsel, while making a feeble attempt to question the awards of the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner who had allowed the vehicle in question to be driven against the terms and conditions of Insurance policy, strenuously urged that the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal to the claimants was excessive and against the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in this behalf. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Uttranchal Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs Vimla Devi and ors, reported as (2009) 4 SCC 377.

4. Supporting the awards, the claimants learned counsel submitted that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue no. 3 framed in this respect on appellant-Insurance Companys plea of avoiding indemnification, does not suffer from any error of law, because, in view of the failure of the Insurance Company to produce any evidence to support its plea that the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, there was no other course open for the Tribunal but to decide the Issue against the appellant-Company for lack of evidence in support of the issue onus of proof whereof lay on it.

5. Learned counsel justifies the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal to the claimants urging that the award is in terms of the provisions of Section 178 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in the absence of any evidence produced by the Insurance Company to rebut the evidence produced by the claimants, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted, because it has been so assessed on the basis of the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in this respect.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

7. Appellants first plea against the findings of the Tribunal on Issue no. 3 needs to be noticed only for its rejection, in that, in the absence of any evidence by the appellant- Insurance-Company to prove that the driver of the vehicle in question did not have valid driving license at the time of the accident and that the vehicle had been dri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document