The main legal point established is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in cases of vehicular accidents, even if the driver did not have the specific license for the vehicle involved.

The dependents of Shri Mohammad Ilyas Beigh, who on 14th June, 2005 lost his life in a vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, claiming an amount of Rs. Twenty lakhs, as compensa­tion on account of loss of income, future pros­pects loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and other available grounds, from the Insurance Company with which the of­fending vehicle was insured. The claim petion was registered as claim petition No. 200/2005.

2. Ms. Aftaba Nazneen travelling with her husband Mohd. Ilyas Beigh as pillion rider on his scooter at the time of accident, got seriously injured in the accident and filed a claim petition for award of Rs. Ten lakhs, on account of permanent disability due to the vehicular accident, hospitalization, Medical treatment etc. The claim petition was regis­tered as claim petition No. 201/2005.

3. The Insurance Company-appellant herein, resisted both the claim petitions inter alia on the grounds that the driver of the of­fending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of acci­dent and that as the vehicle was not having valid route permit and Fitness Certificate at the time of accident, the owner of the ve­hicle was guilty of breach of policy condi­tions and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The Tribunal, on perusal of the plead­ings settled following issues :

"Issue No. 1 :- Wheter on 6-6-2005, the petitioner while travelling with her husband on a scooter as a pillion rider from Soura to­wards Nowhatta were hit near Hawal by ve­hicle with registration No. 40-HP/3472 com­ing from the opposite direction while being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, (respondent No. 2) with the result that both, she and her husband were injured whereas her husband expired on 16-6-2005, whereas, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries re­sulted into permanent disablement ? OPP.

Issue No. 2 :- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, on account of the injury sustained and if so to what extent and from whom? OPP."

In claim petition No. 201/2005, the fol­lowing additional issue was framed;

"Issue No. 3 :- Whether the respondent No. 2 was travelling unauthorized in the of­fending vehicle in contravention of the policy of the Insurance and as such, the respondent/company is not liable by the contract of In­surance ? OPR-3.

5. The issue did not find place in list of issues in claim petition No. 200/2005.

6. The Tribunal on appreciation of evi­dence adduced by the parties, awarded an amount of Rs. 12,62,000/- in favour of the claimants in claim petition No. 200/2005 and an amount of Rs. 1, 42,000/- in favour of claimant in claim petition No. 201/2005.

The awards passed in claim petitions 200/2005 and 201/2005 dated 30-5-2009 are assailed through medium of two separate Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeals registered as CIMA Nos. 193/2009 and 194/2009, on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to appreci­ate that the driver of the offending vehicle had the driving license to drive medium goods vehicle (MGC) heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and heavy passenger service vehicle (HPSV) and not the driving license to drive Load Carrier 407 - a light motor vehicle (LMV) involved in the accident and that the owner of the vehicle by entrusting the ve­hicle to a driver not having an effective driv­ing license committed breach of the policy conditions. It is insisted that the Tribunal re­lying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kusum Rai's case (2006) 4 SCC 250: (AIR 2006 SC 3440) ought to have held the owner of the vehicle - respondent No. 8 in the petition to have violated the terms and con­ditions of Insurance Policy and to be respon­sible to pay the compensation to the victims of the accident. The Tribunal, it is pleaded, has erroneously and oblivious settled legal position saddled the appellant with the re­sponsibility to pay compensation to the re­spondents 1 to 6.

7. It is next pleaded that the compensa­tion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document