The liability of insurers under the Motor Vehicles Act is strict, requiring them to prove negligence for exemption from claim payouts.

1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 109 of 1995 on 13.2.1998 by the learned Joint District Judge and Ex officio Additional Member of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Akola (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim was partly allowed and appellants herein were held jointly and severally liable and directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,20,000 inclusive of amount of 'no fault liability' with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization.

2. Facts in brief are that: on 23.11.1994 at about 2 p.m. Rashmi d/o Hariprakash - singh, aged about 16 years, was going by her bicycle to her college at Paras, Dist. Akola. While passing through a residential colony at Paras, from the opposite direction a motor cycle of Hero Honda make, belonging to Vinayak Ganesh Deshmukh and driven by Prashant s/o Vinayak Deshmukh, aged about 16 years, came in high speed driven rashly and negligently and gave a dash to Rashmi who was thrown away and received head injury and other injuries. She was admitted in the District Hospital, Akola. Unfortunately, while receiving the treatment, she died on 28.11.1994.

3. Crime was reported to the police and was registered as Crime No. 260 of 1994 at Police Station for offence punishable under S.279, S.337 and S.338 of the Indian Penal Code. Spot panchnama, Exh. 39, was drawn.

4. Parents of Rashmi, namely, Hari - prakashsingh and Munnidevi lodged their claim by filing M.A.C.P. No. 109 of 1995 before Tribunal against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending motor cycle, claiming compensation. The notices were served accordingly. All of them denied liability to pay compensation.

5. It is not in dispute that the motor cycle bearing registration No. MH 30 - A 7742 owned by Vinayak Deshmukh was validly insured during the period between 16.5.1994 and 15.5.1995. It is also not in dispute that driver of the offending motor cycle was holding learner's driving licence to drive the motor cycle without gears. The insurance company contests its liability on the plea that the driver, aged about 16 years had no valid driving licence to drive the motor cycle with gears, but he was allowed to drive the offending motor cycle. The appellants contested the claim on the plea that Prashant had been acquitted on merits of charge framed under S.279 and S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code in a criminal case lodged against him and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the finding by the criminal court. Furthermore, it is submitted that insurance company did not prove that there was breach of insurance policy. The Tribunal wrongly exonerated the insurer from its obligation and legal liability to satisfy the claim although insurer had failed to discharge the burden of proof. As to alleged breach of policy, the appellants contested the claim on the plea that Rashmi was negligent while driving bicycle and was solely responsible for her death as she was learning to drive the bicycle. The quantum of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal was disputed on the ground that award is excessive as contributory negligence of Rashmi was disregarded. It is also contended that death of Rashmi was not the direct result of the accident.

6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. The Tribunal recorded the unchallenged facts that on 23.11.1994 at about 2 p.m. the accident occurred on the road in residential colony out of use of Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. MH 30 - A 7742 driven by Prashant s/o V