ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The insurer is in appeal, questioning saddling of entire liability on it, with a direction to pay compensation under judgment and award dated 16.06.2023 in MVC No.5658/2021 on the file of IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”).

2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the present appeal are that:

The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of Bevina Hallappa, husband of the first claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.04.2021 involving motor cycle bearing No.KA-64/Q-2842 and another motor cycle bearing No.KA-64/S-8839. It is stated that, prior to the accident, the deceased was doing Hotel business and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. and it is stated that the deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident. The claimants stated that they were totally depending on the income of the deceased.

3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2 Insurance Company appeared and filed its objections, whereas respondent No.1 placed exparte.

4. Respondent No.2-Insurer though admitted insurance policy, denied the entire claim petition averments and particularly contended that the liability would be subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy. The insurer also contended that the rider of the insured motorcycle had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident, as such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the claimants.

5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1, wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of the Insurer, an Official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1.

6. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.31,05,000/- on the following heads, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, by saddling the entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company:

The Insurance Company is before this Court, questioning the saddling the liability on it, without properly considering the contentions of the insurer that the rider of the motorcycle which was insured with them had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident.

7. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep for learned counsel Sri.H.S.Lingaraju, for the appellant/insurer and Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the entire appeal papers including the certified copies of the records made available by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company during the course of hearing.

8. Learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep for insurer would contend that the Tribunal committed a grave error in saddling the liability on the insurer/appellant herein. He submits that the insurer mainly contended that the rider of the motorcycle which was registered with them had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. As such, he submits that as there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the insurer. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal having given a specific finding that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-64/S-8836, respondent No.7 herein could not have saddled the liability on the insurer. When the rider of the motorcycle which is insured with them had no valid and effective Driving Licence, the insurer would not become liable to indemnify the claimants and it is for the owner of the vehicle to