Judgment

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.-Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 24th December 2014, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kargil (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing File no. 08/Claim titled Abdul Majeed and Others v. Showkat Ahmad Dar and others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 19,42,092/- 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 claimants/respondents 1 to 5, before the Tribunal on 1st July 2007, averring therein that deceased, Niyaz Ahmad S/o Abdul Majeed R/o Bearas Troungen Drass, Kargil, aged 28 years, died in an accident, which took place on 20th November 2009, at Drass, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration no.JK01K-5324, which was insured with appellant Insurance Company. Claimants/Respondents 1 to 5, in their claim petition before the Tribunal, sought grant of compensation of Rs.35.00 Lakhs along with interest.

3. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim before the Tribunal on the ground that the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It was also stated that offending vehicle at the time alleged accident was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, permit and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was admitted that the offending vehicle stood insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the particulars of insurance as recorded in the records of the company were not same as mentioned in the claim petition, but the involvement of the said vehicle in the alleged accident was vehemently denied.

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

1. Whether the deceased Niyaz Ahmad S/o Abdul Majeed R/o Bearas Troungen Drass, Kargil, died in a vehicular accident at Drass on 20th November 2009, when he was hit by vehicle no. JK07/5324 was being driven by its driver (respondent no.2) in a rashly and negligently? OPP.

2. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative then to what quantum of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JK01K-5324 was being driven by the driver without possessing a driving licence and if so what is its effect? OPD 3.

4. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of conditions of policy of insurance permit and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and if so, what is its effect? OPD 3.

5. Relief. OP Parties.

5. Claimants produced and examined two witnesses before the Tribunal; besides claimant/respondent no.1. Appellant Insurance Company has produced two witnesses in support of its stand.

6. By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 19,42,092/- along with 6% interest per annum.

7. Heard and considered.

8. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that the Tribunal has not dealt with Issue nos.3 and 4 in proper perspective. Respondent no.7, driver of offending vehicle, was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, but the Tribunal did not properly appreciate this aspect of the matter while deciding Issue nos.3 and 4. According to him, finding returned by the Tribunal on Issue no.4 is bad in law as there was breach on the part of owner of offending vehicle and, therefore, insurance company is not bound to prove terms and conditions of insurance policy. Offending vehicle was a transport vehicle and driver was not holding authorization to drive a transport vehicle on the date of accident. Vehicle is also stated to have been driven without any route permit and fitness certificate, and that is the reason that police registered case under Sections 56/192, 39/192, 190 (2) of Moto