ORDER

Date : 12-09-2022 Heard Mr. C Phukan, the learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Ms. J Ghosh, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. RK Jain, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. It is seen from the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2018 passed in MAC Case No.276/2015 that the opposite party No.2 i.e., the respondent No.3 herein did not contest the said proceedings.

3. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Member, MACT No.III, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case No.276/2015, thereby awarding an amount of Rs.10,69,600/-only with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the amended claim petition.

4. The issue involved herein is who would be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award shows that the respondent No.2 (owner) herein who was the OP No.2 had filed the written statement denying the claim of the claimants and further stating inter alia that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd, the appellant herein, having a valid policy covering up to midnight of 07.06.2015. It was also mentioned in the written statement that the Respondent No.2 was not responsible to pay any compensation and in the event of any compensation awarded by the tribunal, in view of the insurance policy it is the appellant who has to pay the OP No.3 i.e., the appellant herein had filed the written statement denying the claim of the claimant by taking the plea that after going through the investigation report it is found that the driver of the pickup bearing No.AS-03-AC- 2113 namely Binod Das did not have any valid driving license at the relevant time because the DL No.26444/T/TV/10 issued from the DTO, Tuensang, Nagaland was found without having any record in the office as mentioned. It was mentioned that as the owner of the vehicle violated the condition of the policy and as such, the Appellant company cannot be saddled with the liability.

6. The OP No.4 i.e., the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd by filing a written statement denied the claim of the claimant by taking the plea that the motor cycle bearing No.AS-03-Q-1269 or the pickup bearing No.AS-03-AC-2113 had no effective insurance coverage till the validity of the insurance policy mentioned in the claim petition.

7. The driver of the vehicle i.e., the Respondent No.3 herein, however, did not appear and contest the proceedings.

8. The Tribunal below on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as two issues which were as under:

“I) Whether Dadu Sarma died in the alleged road accident dated 05.10.2014 at Hachara under Teok PS involving vehicle No.AS-03- AC-2113 (pickup van) and AS-03-Q-1261 or whether the said accident took place cue to rash and negligent driving of the driver of any one vehicle?

II) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if yes, to what extent and from whom?”

9. The claimant adduced evidence. On behalf of the OP No.3 i.e., the Appellant, adduced evidence through its administrative officer who was looking after the legal affairs of the company. However, it is seen that the investigator did not adduce any evidence. At this stage it is relevant to take note of an order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Member, MACT No.3 in the said proceedings. A perusal of the said order reveals that both in MAC Case No.275/2015 and MAC Case No.276/2015, the appellant Insurance Company had filed an application to allow them to examine the DTO, Tuensang, Nagaland to prove the certificate to the effect that DL bearing No. 26444/T/TV/10 was a fake license as no records were found in respect to the said driving license. However, the tribunal below on the ground that it would delay the disposal of the claim proceedings rejected the said prayer.

10. Now coming to the impugned judgment and award, it would seen, more particularly at