IMPORTANT POINT
An insurance company can be held liable to pay compensation in motor accident claims, even if it proves a breach of policy conditions, with the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

(Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.) :

1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 31.01.2013, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short "Tribunal") on a Claim petition bearing File no. 231/2006 titled Shameema Bano v. Bashir Ahmad Wani and others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 14,46,000/- 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 evident from perusal of the file, was filed by respondent No.1-Shameema Bano before the Tribunal on 11.10.2006, averring therein that the petitioner, Shameema Bano, injured in an accident, which took place on 06.07.2006 at Pantha Chowk, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration no. JKD-867 (Bus), which was insured with appellant Insurance Company. Claimant/ respondent No. 1 sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 38.00 lacs.

3. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim petition. It was stand of appellant before the Tribunal that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence.

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

a) Whether on 06.07.2006 Mohammad Saleem Wani respondent no. 02 was plying offending vehicle bearing regd. no. JKD/867 rashly and negligently as a result of which at Pantha-chowk Adda, Srinagar it hit the petitioner which sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in the amputation of her left leg which has rendered her permanently disabled? OPP

b) Whether the driver respondent No. 02 of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle and the vehicle was without R/P and other vehicular documents on the date of accident so not liability can be saddled on the company because the insured has wilfully breached policy stipulations? OPR3.

c) In case issue No. 01 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP.

d) Relief.

5. Claimant/respondent No. 1, produced and examined two witnesses before the Tribunal. Appellant Insurance Company also produced witnesses.

6. By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimant/respondent No.1, entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 14,46,000/- along with 6% interest per annum.

7. Heard and considered.

8. Counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that the Tribunal erred in passing impugned Award as it has been specifically pleaded and proved by appellant Insurance Company by sufficient evidence that owner/respondent No. 2 has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy wilfully and knowingly by allowing respondent no. 3 to drive offending vehicle without any valid and effective driving licence. Respondent no. 3, who had been driving the vehicle on the date of occurrence, is stated to have been holding an ineffective license to drive the vehicle. It is contended that owner of offending vehicle, respondent no. 2, has consciously and willingly and knowingly permitted respondent No. 3 to drive offending vehicle, knowing that respondent no. 3 is not holding a valid driving license. Under such circumstances, it can be easily found that respondent no.2 has wilfully and knowingly committed the breach of the policy condition by authorising respondent no. 3 to drive the offending vehicle without having any valid and effective licence for driving the vehicle of the nature which has caused the accident in the case in hand. The learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating respondents 2&3 and instead has held appellant Insurance Company liable under impugned award in violation of provisions of law and that of terms and conditions of the Insurance contract and, accordingly, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

9. As regards above submission, the Tribunal has discussed validity and effectiveness of driving licence of driv