The main legal point established is that the insurer of the offending vehicle can be held liable for compensation if it fails to prove the lack of a valid driving license for the driver.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant–Oriental Insurance Company (‘OIC’ in short) was respondent no. 3 in a claim petition on File no. 32/Claim of 2007 preferred by the claimant – Radha Rani who is respondent no. 1 in the present appeal.

2. The claim was preferred before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Reasi. The road traffic accident which afforded cause of action to the respondent no. 1 – Radha Rani to prefer the claim petition for the injury received upon her person is when she was riding an Auto Rikshaw bearing no. 2551-JK14-A which came to be hit by the offending vehicle (Bus) no. JKR-2229 driven by the offending driver, namely, Mohd. Iqbal i.e. the respondent no. 3 herein (respondent no. 1 in the claim petition) resulting in causing injury to the petitioner.

3. The accident occurred on 28.09.2006 at about 4:45 PM. The accident left the respondent no. 1 – Radha Rani with injuries in the form of fracture of fingers, shoulder and collar bone resulting in her medical treatment from Amritsar, Punjab.

4. The offending vehicle (Bus) bearing no. JKR-2229 was owned by the respondent no. 2 herein i.e. Raj Kumar Sharma (respondent no. 2 in the claim petition).

5. The respondent no. 1 preferred the claim petition naming the owner of the Bus – Raj Kumar Sharma, the driver - Mohd. Iqbal and the appellant – OIC as insurer of the offending vehicle (Bus).

6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Reasi came to adjudicate the claim of the respondent no. 1. In the claim petition, it is only the appellant–OIC which came to cause its appearance whereas the owner - Raj Kumar Sharma and the driver - Mohd. Iqbal remained absent and were set ex-parte in the case.

7. Issues were framed to the following effect:-

i) Whether accident of petitioner took place near Seela village due to negligence driving of respondent No. 1/Driver of vehicle No. 2229-JKR and hit Auto bearing No. 2551-JK14-A resulting in injuries to petitioner.

ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative how much amount of compensation, petitioner is entitled.

iii) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the respondent No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

iv) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.

v) Relief.

8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Reasi, came to hold that the accident was caused by negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing no. JKR-2229 by the driver - Mohd. Iqbal (respondent no. 3 herein). With respect to Issue no. 3 & 4 as to whether the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing no. JKR-2229 was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the offending driver - Mohd. Iqbal was not having a valid and effected Driving License came to be found against the appellant–OIC.

9. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Reasi came to award compensation of an amount of Rs.5,11,854/- to the respondent no. 1 – Radha Rani (the claimant). For the payment of the said compensation amount, the onus came to be placed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Reasi upon the appellant-OIC.

10. Against this award, the appellant - OIC is in the present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

11. The challenge is being thrown to the award both on factual as well as legal aspect. The main plank of the appellant-OIC to recuse itself from bearing the burden of paying the compensation as being the insurer of the offending vehicle (Bus) is that the offending driver - Mohd. Iqbal was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident and for this the only evidence which came to be produced from its end was statement of its own official i.e. Sh. Uma Kant, Assistant Manager of OIC and no other person in particular from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) concerned.

12. In addition, the appellant-OI