Appellate courts have the authority to grant 'just compensation' regardless of the absence of formal cross-objections. Additionally, an insurer bears the strict burden of proof to demonstrate the lack of a valid driving license and cannot rely on mere allegations to evade liability.

JUDGMENT :

MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J.

1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 27.06.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 608 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.9,70,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, as compensation.

2. A perusal of the record transpires that the respondent no.5 herein – driver of the offending auto-rickshaw had expired, but the appellant-Insurance Company has not taken any step to bring the legal representatives of respondent no.5 herein on record. Therefore, the appeal qua respondent no.5 stands abated.

3. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the captioned appeal are summarized as under :-

i. On 03.09.2007, Sohan Ritu Prajapati was travelling in a rickshaw bearing Registration No. GJ-10-W-1434 from Reliance Kolsi Gate to Village Padana. At about 05:00 p.m., when the rickshaw reached ahead of Village Padana, it overturned due to excessive speed and the rash and negligent driving of its driver. As a result of the accident, Sohan Ritu Prajapati sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

ii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were duly served upon the opponents. The opponent no.1 – respondent no.5 herein chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, however, the Insurance Company appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed Written-Statement at Exh.20, thereby, denying the averments made in the claim petition in toto.

iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.30, for determination.

i. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident due to rash and/or negligent driving of the driver of the motor-vehicles involved in the said accident?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom?

iii. What Award?

iv. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,70,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, as compensation.

v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company preferred the captioned appeal.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

5. Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw was not having the valid and effective driving license. It is submitted that in order to prove its defence, the Insurance Company has examined Mr.Manish K.Dave at Exh.54. Having placed reliance upon the affidavit in examination-in-chief of Mr.Manish K. Dave, it is submitted that the driver of the auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.GJ-10-W-1434 was not holding the valid driving license, as the Investigating Officer, in his statement recorded that he lost the driving license. It is submitted that in view of admission of driver of the auto-rickshaw, in his statement made to the police, it is evident from the re