The court emphasized the validity of the driver's license and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award dated 18th of December, 2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar in a claim Petition bearing No. 50/2006 titled ‘Mrs. Shahzada & Ors. v. United Insurance Company & Ors.’, whereby the claimants/ Respondents 1 to 4 herein were granted an amount of Rs.9,30,000/- + 25,000/- with 6 % interest, inclusive of interim relief, from the date of presentation of the claim Petition till final realization.

2. The impugned award has been assailed by the Appellant-Insurance Company, inter alia, on the following grounds:

a. “That besides raising valid and legal objections, it was specifically contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle was not holding the valid driving licence at the time of accident and also that the offending vehicle was being plied without valid vehicular documents which fact was proved to the satisfaction of the Hon’ble Tribunal when an application was moved for calling upon the owner and driver of the vehicle to submit the documents in terms of Section 134 (C) of the Motor Vehicles Act and despite being directed, the documents were never ever furnished, as such, the company was not liable to indemnify the insured. The fact that the driver Fayaz Ahmad Mir was holding a driving licence for plying MPMV/Taxi car til 16-01-2003 and that on the date of accident i.e. 28-01-2006, he was not holding a valid driving licence and the owner/ insured knowing the said fact having allowed the said driver to ply the vehicle has to be saddled with the liability instead of the appellant-company. The Tribunal, however, without looking into that aspect of the matter proceeded to fasten the liability upon the appellant-company, as such, erred fundamentally in law therefore, the impugned award on this score is liable to be quashed;

b. That the fact of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance by the insured were also proved by the appellant-company and no evidence whatsoever had been produced in rebuttal to the Tribunal in this behalf. Despite the fact that the Tribunal was being conscious about it had fastened the liability of Rs.25,000/- upon the Driver of the offending vehicle without any cogent and substantial reason. The award on this score also is liable to be set aside;

c. That the amount of award passed in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 has been passed mechanically and on a higher side and without there being any cogent and substantial evidence, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside;

d. That the impugned award has been passed by misdirecting the law on the subject, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside;

e. That the impugned award passed by the trial court has caused great prejudice and harm to the appellant. Since the impugned award has visited the appellant with evil as well as penal consequences, therefore, the appellant has no option but to seek setting aside of the said order through the medium of this appeal;

f. That the trial court has miss-appreciated the controversy involved in the matter on facts as well as on law while passing the impugned award, as such, is liable to be set aside; and

g. That the appellant company is holding the corpus in trust and in the capacity of being trustees of the public money are accountable for every penny of it and any direction which would have the effect of jeopardizing the rights of the appellant-company to protect its right to hold the public money in trust cannot sustain, therefore, on this score also, the impugned award is liable to be quashed.”

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has restricted his arguments mainly to the two points; first, that the quantum of compensation was exorbitant and, second, that the driving license of the driver was not valid and effective as on the date of accident to drive the offending vehicle (Tipper), as s