The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurance company in a motor vehicle accident case depends on the actions of the vehicle owner in ensuring the driver's qualifications and the grounds on which the insurer can contest a claim.

1. Shri Sarwar Hussain Bhat Son of Mohammad Ramzan Bhat Resident of Kanterbugh Khwaja Qasim, Pattan was on 16th February 2007 run over by vehicle No. JK09-2904 (Tata-Sumo) on National Highway at Hanjiwara. The victim died on spot. Mst. Shameema Banoo - mother of the victim on 7th April 2004, joined by her husband and two sons, filed a claim petition before Mo#31;tor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Srinagar. The petitioners on the strength of averments made in the pe#31;tition claimed compensation of Rs.34,30,000/- on account of death of Sarver Hussain Bhat from the owner of the offending vehicle, its driver and the Insurance Company, with which the of#31;fending vehicle was insured.

2. The claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company inter alia on the grounds that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the Insurance Company was not under any obligation to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The In#31;surance Company also controverted other averments made in the claim pe#31;tition. The owner of the offending ve#31;hicle pleaded that the Tribunal at Srinagar, lacked jurisdiction to enter#31;tain and deal with the claim petition and also made a specific averment that he had taken all steps to ensure that the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid and effective driving licence be#31;fore he was employed by him as a driver of the offending vehicle. The owner pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle has been driving the vehicle of the type the owner purchased to earn his livelihood, prior to his engagement as driver by the owner and thus he had reasonable belief that the driving li#31;cence in possession of the driver which bore seal and signature of Regional Transport Officer, was valid and effec#31;tive. The driver in his objections denied involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. However he did not plead that the licence held by him was valid and genuine.

3. The Tribunal on going through the pleadings settled the following is#31;sues for determination :-

i; Whether on 16.02.2007 Irshad Ahmad Lone respondent No. 3 was ply#31;ing offending vehicle Tata Sumo bear#31;ing registration No.JK09-2904 rashly and negligently as a result of which near Hanjiwara Pattan it hit Sarwar Hussain Bhat who sustained fatal in#31;juries and later on succumbed to the same on spot? OPP.

ii) Whether the driver/respondent No.3 of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving li#31;cence and had no authority to ply the vehicle on the date of accident and the offending vehicle was without valid R/P and other vehicular documents on the date of accident so no liability can be saddled on the company because the insured has breached policy stipula#31;tions? OPR-1

iii) Whether this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try and dispose of claim petition? OPR 2 and 3.

iv) In case issue no. 1 is proved in af#31;firmative, what amount of compensa#31;tion the petitioner is entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP.

v) Relief.

4. The petitioners examined S/Shri Shafiq Hussain Bhat and Haji Abdul Rehman Mir to substantiate their case. Shri Mohammad Ramzan Bhat father of the deceased and petitioner No. 2 in the claim petition also crossed the wit#31;ness box. The respondent Insurance Company on its part examined Fayaz Ahmad Koka Junior Clerk ARTO, Anantnag, to discharge the burden, to prove issues, onus whereof was placed on respondent No. 1. The respondents 2 and 3 examined Shri Mohammad Altaf Wani and Irshad Ahmad Banday to sup#31;port their case. The owner of the offend#31;ing vehicle respondent No.2 also ap#31;peared in the witness box.

5. The Tribunal on going through the evidence held the deceased to have been run over by the offending vehicle driven rashly and negligently by its driver-respondent No.3, on 16.02.2007 at Hanjiwara. The Tribunal was of the opinion that though the respondent No.3 was not having valid and effective driving licence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document