Point of Law: Accident - Liability of Insurance company and Owner - Award of compensation is not within the four corners of law and the schedule contained in the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 03.02.2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition, being File no. 98 of 2012, titled as Bashir Ahmad Mir and another v. Ghulam Hassan Dar and others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.39,94,411/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of the file, was filed by respondents 1&2 before the Tribunal on. 27.04.2012, averring therein that deceased Sajad Bashir Mir aged 26 years, died in an accident, which took place on 18.01.2012 at Bemina Byepass Crossing, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration no.JK03B/3642, which was insured with appellant Insurance Company. Claimants/Respondents sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 54,00,000/-.

3. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed Issues for determination, which are:

a) Whether on 18.01.2012 a vehicle (Truck) bearing regd. No. JK03B/3642 being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently and on reaching near Bemina Bye Pass Crossing, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over his vehicle and struck against an Alto Car which was coming from Tatoo Ground towards Parimpora, with the result the deceased namely Sajad Bashir Mir, who was travelling in the said Alto Car sustained multiple fatal injuries on various parts of his body and later-on succumbed to the injuries.? (OPP)

b) Whether the owner of the offending vehicle, insured has permitted the driver to ply the said vehicle without valid, effective D/L and other vehicular documents and any special endorsement for carrying passengers which is violation of policy conditions, if yes, the insured has committed the breach of insurance contract absolved respondent No. 3-Insruance Company from its liability on account of petitioners claim ? (OPR-3)

c) In case the issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion.? OPP

d) Relief?

5. Claimants produced and examined four witnesses before the Tribunal; besides claimants/respondent no.3. Appellant Insurance Company also produced one witness in support of its stand.

6. By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs.39,94,411/- along with 6.5% interest per annum to be paid by appellant Insurance Company.

7. Heard and considered. The Tribunal record has been gone through.

8. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, to buttress the case set up in Appeal on hand, has averred that the Tribunal has erred in passing impugned Award since offending vehicle was driven by respondent-driver, having learner’s licence at the time of accident, which was in contravention to Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules and Motor Vehicles Act inasmuch as the same expressly makes it necessary for owners of vehicles to allow the vehicle to be driven by a driver possessing a valid and effective driving licence and non-existence of valid and effective driving licence has the effect of vitiating the terms and conditions of policy contract which goes to the root of insurance contract and, therefore, liability on account of such breach has to be borne by the owner. It is also contended that the Tribunal while passing impugned award has not appreciated the law correctly. Possession of invalid driving licence by driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident is a breach of policy conditions and against provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Above submission of learned counsel for appellant has been vehemently controverted by learned counsels for respondents as according to them contention qua Learner’s Licence had neither been taken by appellant Insurance Company be