Point of Law: Accident - Driving license - Validity of - Onus would shift on the insurance company only after owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving license at the relevant time.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant insurance company has challenged the award dated 13.06.2015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby a sum of Rs.9,10,000/ along with interest @7.5% per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be payable by the appellant insurance company.

2. The instant appeal owes its genesis to a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.03.2012 at Tulkhun Bijbehara, when a vehicle bearing No.JK03B-9192 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, the respondent No.4 herein, knocked down mother of the claimants, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein, resulting in her death.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant insurance company as well as by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, by filing their pleadings in answer to the claim petition. All the respondents before the Tribunal denied the occurrence. The appellant insurance company, while admitting that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance with it, claimed that there was breach of policy conditions, inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the relevant time. However, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, in their reply categorically stated that there was no breach of policy conditions on their part and that the driver was holding a valid driving license.

4. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether on 15th of March, 2012, the deceased Fatima was on her way to fetch some vegetables and was going on her side of the road and the offending vehicle bearing registration No.JK03B-9192 driven by the respondent No.2 at a very high speed hit the deceased from behind, resulting in serious injuries to the deceased on her head and other parts and succumbed to injuries in SKIMS on 21.03.2012?(OPP)

(2) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2?

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, from and to what extent?

(4) Whether the respondents are not liable to indemnify the petitioner as he was not having a valid and effective D/L at the time of accident?(OPR5)

(5) Relief? OP Parties

5. After recording the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue Nos.1 and 2, came to the conclusion that the accident that had resulted in death of the deceased caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the respondent No.4 herein. Regarding issue No.3, the learned Tribunal while recording a finding that the deceased was a housewife besides doing the job spinning, chain stitching and looking after the orchards and other family affairs, computed the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month, where-after it concluded that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,10,000/-.

6. Regarding issue No.4, the learned Tribunal observed that the insurer has failed to examine any witness or any official from the licensing authority to conclusively prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving license at the relevant time and, accordingly, the insurance company was saddled with the liability to satisfy the award.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, grounds of appeal and the record of the learned Tribunal.

8. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal on a number of grounds but during the course of arguments only two grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

9. The first ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driving license of the offending was not