The court upheld the insurance company's liability despite claims of policy violations, confirming that valid insurance coverage is paramount unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, as amended till date, against the award dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Belonia, in case No.T.S. (MAC) 44 of 2017 whereby the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd has been directed to pay an awarded amount of Rs.2,26,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty-six thousand) with 7 % interest from 18.11.2017 till payment is made.

2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of T.S.(MAC) 44 of 2017. The case of the petitioner, as revealed from the claim petition, in short, is that on 14.04.2016 at about 6.40 p.m. the petitioner Sri Sujit Das along with seven persons were proceeding towards Udaipur, Matarbari from Rajnagar by boarding the vehicle bearing No. TR-01BC-0666 (Scorpio), but when the vehicle reached at Garjee, Natin Tilla suddenly the vehicle was capsized on the National Highway and dashed with a tree. As a result of the accident, the petitioner along with others sustained injuries on their persons and they were shifted to Gomati District Hospital, Udaipur by the local people. During treatment one passenger namely Kartik Malakar succumbed to the injuries and the petitioner along with others were referred to ILS Hospital, Agartala wherein the petitioner was treated upto 22.04.2016. It is also stated that the petitioner is a cultivator by profession and due to the said accident he could not perform his normal works and also could not earn a single farthing. The petitioner also stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01BC-0666 (Scorpio). Thus, he has claimed a compensation of Rs. 31,88,630/- before the tribunal.

3. The claimant-petitioner preferred the petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act on 18.11.2017. Accordingly, the instant case was registered and notices were issued upon the Opposite Parties. O.P. No.1 & 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.TR-01BC-0666 (Scorpio) jointly filed their written statement admitting the accident, but denied any rashness and negligence. It is also pleaded by O.P. No.1 & 2 that in the event of passing any award, the liability may be fixed on the insurer of the vehicle as on the date of alleged accident the vehicle was insured with the O.P.-insurance company and had all valid documents and O.P. No.1 was driving the vehicle holding a valid driving licence.

4. The OP No. 3, the insurance company contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied all the allegations and averments made in the petition stating that the claim petition is not maintainable. He has stated that he is not liable to pay any compensation unless the claimant petitioner is able to prove the insurance policy and that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle with proper driving license and there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of both sides the following issues were framed by the tribunal:-

(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident on 14.04.2016 involving vehicle No. TR-01BC-0666?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent?

(iii) Who is liable to pay such compensation?

6. To prove the ca