The burden of proof regarding insurance liability rests with the petitioners and vehicle owner, who failed to provide valid documentation.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 28.01.2013 passed in MVC No.1854/2007 by the learned Presiding Officer, FTC-III, & Additional MACT, Belagavi.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

3. On 26.02.2007, the deceased Manjunath was coming from Yaragatti towards Murgod by riding his motorcycle at a moderate speed on the correct side of the road. When he came near the spot of the accident, the tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-22/4451, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a great speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased Manjunath, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Manjunath in a road traffic accident.

Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objection denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the deceased Manjunath was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at excessive speed without following the basic traffic rules, and lost control over the motorcycle and suddenly came across the offending vehicle. It was impossible for the driver of the offending vehicle to stop the offending vehicle at once to avoid the accident. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined herself as P.W.1, and marked 34 documents as Exs.P1 to P.34. Conversely, the officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R1.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 28.01.2013, and awarded a compensation of Rs.14,15,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization, and held that the respondents, i.e., owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the fastening of the liability in MVC No.1854/2007, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

10. The notices were issued to the petitioners and the owner. Despite the service of a notice, the owner and the petitioners remained unrepresented before this court.

11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company. He submits that the Tribunal issued notice to respondent No.1- owner to produce the premium paid receipt and the original insurance policy. Despite the directions issued by the Tribunal, the owner did not produce the premium pai