The burden of proof lies on the insurance company to prove negligence, and in cases of composite negligence, claimants have the option to sue any of the owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') filed by the Insurance Company against an award dated 06.04.2005 passed by the District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Phulbani (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal') in MAC No. 130/2002.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case as stated by the claimant- Respondents in nutshell are that on 29.07.2002 at about 1.30 PM while the deceased-Raghunath Sahu was coming in a motorcycle as a pillion rider on the left side of the road, a bus bearing registration No. ORO7 B 2124 coming in a high speed from the opposite direction dashed against the motorcycle on PWD road leading from Kalinga to Balliguda near Goibali Nala. Deceased-Raghunath Sahu and rider of the motorcycle fell down. They were taken to Baliguda hospital where they succumbed to the injuries. The further case of the claimants was that the deceased-Raghunath Sahu having a grocery business was earning Rs. 5,000/-to Rs. 6,000/- per month and was contributing Rs. 3,000/- towards the maintenance of his family. With these facts the legal heirs of the deceased filed an application before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6.0 lakhs.

3. The owner of the offending bus (Opp. Party No. 1) filed written statement denying the claim of the Petitioners. According to him, the Opp. Party No. 2, who is the insurer of the bus, is liable to pay the compensation since at the relevant time the bus was covered under a valid insurance policy.

Opposite party No. 2-Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. also filed a separate written statement denying the allegation of the Petitioner. It was pleaded by opposite party No. 2 that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid licence and the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased and as such opposite party No. 2 was not liable to pay the compensation.

4. On the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following six issues.

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. OR-07B-2142 (Private bus namely "Malati')?

(ii) Whether the death of Raghunath Sahu, S/0 Late Bachha Sahu, occurred due to the accident in question?

(iii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what extent and from which of the Opp. Parties?

(iv) Whether the Insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid at the time of accident?

(v) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid driving licence at the time of accident?

(vi) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any other relief?

5. After considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence and rival contentions of the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and the deceased died due to the said accident. The insurance policy of the offending bus was valid on the date of accident. The driving licence of the driver was also valid at the relevant time of accident. The learned Tribunal held that the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending bus is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the contribution towards his family was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-per month. Taking into account the age of the deceased to be 28 years at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal applied 18 multiplier and assessed the compensation at Rs. 4.0 lakhs which included the funeral expenses and loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending bus to pay the awarded amount of Rs. 4.0 lakhs with interest of 6% per annum, with effect from date of application dated 09.12.2002 within two months from the date of its order. Learned Tribunal further directed that ou