3 MFA 8809/06 Rs.4,23,Q()O/« Wttth interest at 6% 13.21. fixing the liability 01; the owner of the vehicle by exeneratihg' Respondent No.2 Ir;eu;fa:h'£:e
Company.
2. We have heard the ctyhurtset ;,:”e: ‘the:
According to the claimants, the _:ieceas’e–;i §}.ayam1:3;:ydied ‘in’ ‘
read traffic: accident occurred was
standing near the bus stop” Hazéhatlij Heepitai”V:Road on
account of rash and negligearith bf of the Tempe
bearing N0.KA~1.1:.i:&49_O against the
deceased and Ketryetthhhhsustained injuries.
Later, Jay€trn.IIté1..:vtiieti;:A_ ..e_L1;<ijit discharged from the
Hospital. "on account of the death of
Jayamma, the4_appeIIahtAVfiieef".}Vf\?C N0.1863/2002 and eiaiming
_VC0mpen§{saLtien 0:1" Aaeeouni; of the injuries sustained by the
MVC N02382/2002 was fitted; The
the evidence tet in by the parties hetd that
V the df';':t:er.._;ii<}-,ti0t possess Et vattd license and exeherated the
h{1e:;ranee'Cempany. The owner of the vehteie did net contest
The Tribunal wtthettt. apptyittg the preper multiplier
Vh:;:e_}awarde:i it meeger eompensatteh ané atse er: the gmurté
% V,
4 MF'A. 55049/.96
that the compensation awarded under the co:1vehtiQ:1_al Vl'l'€:i4€;.(lS«V
is oh lewer siclel the present appeal is fileel.'e=eel~:iI1;3f_"t
enhancement of eempensatien and al-ed' ta fixlu the :lia'l;_;ilit}zfo1i'–V&
the insurance company.
3. We have hearcl. the cQAzl11ftr§lel._fe’t..Lthe pa.c*:Tties,,’§
4». According to the”~lear_nec;l_ ‘CC-ri:1vsel.f0r the Claimants.
there is nothing on Ifeecsrd the’ of the vehicle
had not pessesfgelcl to the learned
Counsel for has been examined
as RW.l the ehargesheet and a
letter addeeseetl he Company to the owner of the
vehicle eallii1g°upt’pes3ess valid license. in the Circumstances, she
reegueétrs to allow the appeal and fix the liability en
the lne§i:rahee.'{‘il0mpahy. She further eentehds that even in the
u filed lclri behalf of the other two elaimahte, namely, Kavgza
atitti. tlayanth, the Tribunal has awarded eempensatien by Fixing
..l_4lthe”lliahility en the insurance Cenipahjg and later to reeever
5 MFA 6809/O6
frern the owner of the vehicle. When the eréier passed 1n._MVC
2362/2002 and 2335/2002 are satisfied by the Ine.en”en::e
Cexnpanys a sirniiar order may be passed in the preser:t_’V:e.ajse.,___ _
since the elairnants are third parties. She furthe1″ce.njten’d.:s
the eonnpensatien awarded by the Tribunal xi}; inetdeqi1’atfe-eeA_a12:i.’
requests to be reconeiciered by thnie4__C0’uft._vCIn the ;
learned eounsei for the InsuranceV’Vt’ee_n1p_anyVtteontendehithat the
Compensation awarded othetfh teve cases
considering the meager the Tribunal
and that the same’Ca_nn0t!be ga Court to fix the
liability on the According ta him, the
Insuraneevt’C{j1;1}V§té}.n’3f.hits; driver did not possess
valid hcense ° to In the circumstances, he
requests the ‘eggs: te appeal.
__Hav1ng._§heard theV”eet1nseI: for the parties, two points are to be
V. fleonsicttex this appea}.
the Insurance Cempany has preved
the driver end not possess valid Heense’?
AA Vhg.»–…&KR?E1ether the Compensation awarded by the
Tribune} is en Iewer side?”
5 MFA 6809/06
5. Se far as the first point is concerned, exieept
examining RWJ and producing the copy of the
and the letter addressed to the owner of the xsehtele *
postal acknowledgement for having served the_-‘iedttedf; dthe:
evidence is let in to Show that the driver –‘ne’t,pes’ees”:~: ::”va1’i:};_’
license.
6. The mere :’1.et.tei*.addreeeed to the
ewner of the VehieieVea11ingAVVtn;:t0n the license of
the driver eannO7P_’V driver did not
possess vahd of the ehargesheet
alone cannetxbe thhatvthe driver did not posses
valid license.” considering these points
has exe-neratetd..th’e Company. According to us, the
V in by Athevv..£nsuranee Company on the question of
hitatididty».et7__the’«h’ee_nse is not sufficient and based on such
evidence. can hetd that the driver did not peeeess
valid einee the burden at preving that the driver did not
§;;>’a.s£,et::».s’1 valid heense is on the Insurance Cen1pany. When the
.’_§n’é’nt*’anee Company has failed te discharge its dnttee,
-«udexeneratttng the eemeangt doee net arise at at}, Eaten etherwiee,
‘If /,.
Y
7 MFA 6S{I_!Q;/G6
arising out cf the same incident when the Ezasurance CQf:1§ a:_1y
has satigfiacl the claim in the twc Gtizer claim
when directisan is issueé in these twe peiiiierzs ta. II::3%:§;§3.nae”
Cempany ta pay and recaver, we are {sf thé ‘cg::i:1i(ir1* t_i:a§, §éLf:}¢
erder has ta bf? passed in this <:aseWa}$r.:n Acc:srg§i'z1§1y;1*< flaw V'
answer Point 960,1.
1?. 80 far as Poinig We are of the epinion that the muitiplier to be applied ix; 0f applying the
muitipiier ‘ “?4{*.'[.’;:’.’§E)~V£fi€:%’0i.€g the claimants are
entitled fig: compensatien under the
head ioss €>i’«}4’dVe;:§eiic1§e.i1{jy»; the netianal heads, only
is avi;az:j(Vié’::i 21:3 against Rs.40,0()O/~ therefsre, We
V. Qfiinion that the claimants are entitled for
RS.”2{}«,If.?:Q£3 afiditian to what has been awardefi under this
head; ~ éll the claimants are eniitied far enhanced
‘..§CInp$nsa::_9E1 sf Rs,4.«{3,8f3{}/-.
S. in {he resuii, $319 appeai is afiaweii in par’: and £116
_ §s;§gmafi£ 331$ award 9? £116 Tzibunai is mséifieé. The
“9
8 ;»f06~ V.
appeliants are entitled far total eempensation ;’b~ ”
with interest at 6% .22. fmm the date OiT.__’fi)’€f:§,i’i iQI;1’_’f.iH”€§a1;%g
paymem. The Eiability has been fiZ{§Ci ar1 “‘:i}e§i3.1 theV.:4ee..;3:C>fide:j3f;’¥3e.
it is apex: for Respondeni No.2 is ségijéfy the ;€t’€’€aif{§ ‘:an%:1: recover
the same from the {3W1’1€I’ of the vehielee’; .__ _
V’
ee g_7i,:Ief<fee x eeee Sifg
e" e e" §§E§E
JL