Judgment

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.-Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 11th April 2016, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing MAC no. 33/2007 titled Mohammad Afzal Sidiqi v. Irfan Elahi and Others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.7,98,000/- 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 respondent nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal on 21st August 2007, averring therein that Mohd Afzal Siddiqui S/o Mehfooz Ahmad Siddiqui R/o Chakka Tola, aged 36 years, got injured in an accident, which took place on 26th June 2007 at Drangbal Pampore, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration no. JK05-2342 (Truck) which was insured with appellant Insurance Company.

3. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim before the Tribunal on the ground that respondent no.2 had miserably failed to prove that the vehicular documents were valid on the date of accident as he had not submitted such documents before the investigator for verification despite repeated demands from the investigator for the same. Under established law, a commercial vehicle cannot ply on the public premises/roads without a valid route permit.

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

1. Whether on 26th June 2007, the petitioner was going towards Pampore as a Pillion rider of Motorcycle bearing no. 7198-JK01F, driven by Ab. Qayoom Wani S/o Gh. Rasool Wani R/o Chatapora, Pulwama, was hit near Munsiff Court Pampore, by truck no. 2342-JK05, being driven by respondent no.2 rashly and negligently with the result the petitioner was rendered disabled? OPP.

2. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.2 without a valid DL and route permit, if yes, the company is not bound to indemnify the owner? OPP.

4. Relief. OP Parties.

5. Claimants produced and examined three witnesses before the Tribunal; besides claimants/respondent no.1. Appellant Insurance Company also produced one witness namely Jamsheed Saqib in support of its stand.

6. By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 7,98,000/- along with 6% interest per annum.

7. Heard and considered.

8. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has submitted that driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was being plied without route permit.

As regards above submission, as may be seen from plain reading of the record on the file as also impugned Award, Issue no.3 was framed, discussed and decided by the Tribunal. The onus to prove Issue no.4 was upon appellant Insurance Company, but it has failed to discharge its burden to prove Issue no.3 and accordingly the same was decided against appellant Insurance Company.

9. Learned counsel for appellant has also stated that the Tribunal erred in passing impugned Award as compensation awarded by it is on higher side. Respondent no.1 could not lead any documentary evidence in support of his pleadings especially with regard to his income and medical expenses. The Tribunal is said to have erred in law in taking the income of the respondent no.1 as Rs.9000/- per month and has further erred in working out the compensation by taking the disability of respondent no.1 as 40% when in fact the injury has been of temporary nature and curable. Besides there was no evidence on record before the Tribunal justifying to award additional compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh for medical expenses. Likewise, the awarding of Rs.50000/- more for shock and pain is on the higher s