The main legal point established in the judgment is the insurer's duty to satisfy judgments and awards against insured persons, as well as the ability to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

A. GOHIL, S. YADAV, JJ.

( 1 ) APPELLANT insurance company being aggrieved by the award passed on 31. 1. 2000, by the Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, gohad in Claim Case No. 15 of 1999 has filed this appeal under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 4. 3. 1998 one Munnasingh alias Indraveer singh was going from Gohad Chauraha to sikara via Mahgaon sitting in a jeep No. MP 06-B 6279. At Birkhadi Bus Stand the said jeep was stopped. He was crossing the road to ease himself. In the meantime one matador bearing No. MP 07-G 1735 came from the side of Bhind, which was being driven by respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the driver of Matador was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the deceased Munnasingh while crossing the road, as a result of this accident Munnasingh died on the spot. The said Matador was owned by the respondent No. 4 and insured with respondent No. 5. Matter was reported to P. S. Gohad Chauraha, where crime was registered, matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed. Deceased was also referred for post-mortem.

( 3 ) CLAIMANTS, those were the widow and two minor sons, have filed claim petition for claiming compensation. In the claim petition it was contended that the deceased was aged about 30 years. He was engaged in the business of selling milk and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. It was also stated that after deducting the expenses he was saving Rs. 2,000 per month from the aforesaid business and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,10,000 (rupees ten lakh ten thousand ). Before the Tribunal owner and driver of the vehicle, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, remained ex parte. Insurance company, respondent No. 3, denied that the age of the deceased was 30 years or he was engaged in business of selling milk. It was further objected that the driver of Matador was not holding a valid driving licence and he was driving the vehicle contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Claims Tribunal, issues were framed, evidence of both the parties were recorded and after considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that deceased died because of rash and negligent driving of Matador by its driver and the deceased was aged about 30 years. The tribunal also found that he was not earning rs. 3,000 per month, i. e. , Rs. 36,000 per annum but he was earning Rs. 1,000 per month, i. e. , Rs. 12,000 per annum and considered the dependency at Rs. 9,000 per annum and applied the multiplier of 16' and awarded the total compensation of rs. 1,54,000 (rupees one lakh fifty-four thousand) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Before Tribunal, evidence was produced on behalf of the insurance company that the driver of Matador was not having valid driving licence. The insurance company had examined one Rakesh Vajpayee, who was working in the office of r. T. O. , Jhansi. His statement was recorded on commission. The aforesaid witness had deposed that the copy of the licence which was produced by the claimants in the court was not issued from the office of R. T. O. , jhansi and it was also deposed by him that it is a forged licence. Surveyor was also appointed by the insurance company for holding an inquiry about the driving licence and the same report was submitted by the surveyor to the insurance company that no such licence was issued by the R. T. O. , jhansi and licence of the driver was fake and forged and after considering the aforesaid evidence the Tribunal found that the driving licence of Kanhaiyhalal Phatak, respondent No. 5, who was the driver of matador, was fake and forged and he was driving the vehicle on the basis of forged licence but held that though licence is forged and fake, insurance company is liable for payment of compensation and placed reliance on various decisions of the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document