This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9, for

short) has been filed by the Insurance Company being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.05.2020 passed by

the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Holalkere in MVC

No.179/2018.

- 3 -

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 11.04.2015 at about 7.30 p.m.

the deceased Jabiulla was proceeding on motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-16/Y-6844 from Nallur to

Channagiri town. When he reached near Arecanut garden

between Channagiri-Davanagere road at that time, a

Mahindra Maximo goods vehicle bearing registration No.

KA-17/B-3401 which was being driven in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a

result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the

spot.

3.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166

of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the

deceased along with interest.

4.

On service of summons, the respondent No.2

appeared through counsel and filed written statement in

which the averments made in the petition were denied.

- 4 -

The age, occupation and income of the deceased are

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and

frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the

accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the

motorcycle by the deceased himself. It was further

pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not

possess valid driving licence as on the date of the

accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject

to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further

pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the

claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of

the petition.

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed

ex-parte.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case,

- 5 -

examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited

documents

namely

Ex.P1

to

Ex.P8.

On

behalf

of

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The Claims

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that

the accident took place on account of rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of

which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to

the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants

are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,93,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance

Company to deposit the compensation amount along with

interest. Being aggrieved, Insurance Company has filed

this appeal.

6.

Sri D.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the driver of the offending vehicle was not

having a valid and effective driving lience. The Insurance

- 6 -

Company has filed a written statement and has taken a

specific contention that the driver of the offending vehicle

was not having a valid and effective driven licence. The

Insurance Company has issued notice to the owner for

furnishing the driving licence of the driver of the offending

vehicle. The notice is produced as Ex.R3. Inspite of that

notice the owner has not produced the driving licence.

Secondly,

even

the

police

after

thorough

investigation have filed the charge sheet under Sections

180, 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is very

clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

having a valid and effective driving licence. Even the

Insurance Company has examined its officer as RW1. He

has categorically stated that the driver of the offending

vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving

licence. The Insurance Company has proved its burden

that the driver