JUDGMENT
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The deceased in MVC. 1/1995 is one Rachappa Puttappa Chakrasali died in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased is said to be coolie working in a rice mill. His income is stated to be assessed at Rs. 450/- per month as per petition averments wife and children are the petitioner Besides, the mother is impleaded as pro-forma 1st respondent in the appeal.
2. As per unit system, Rs. 90/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 64,800/- (Rs. 360/-x12x15 multiplier). The wife is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium. The petitioners-appellants together entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of expectancy and Rs. 3,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the petitioners-appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 87,800/- payable with interest at 6% from the date of petition till payment.
3. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners-appellants have failed to prove the negligence. The view taken by the Tribunal is palpably false. The documents produced show that the driver of the offending vehicle is prosecuted in the criminal case. There is no denial of the occurence of the accident. There is no contra-evidence to disbelieve the oral evidence. In that view, the petitioners-appellants have successfully proved the negligence. The contra-finding of the Tribunal in that behalf if liable to the set aside.
4. The 4th respondent-insurer in the addition written statement has admitted the issuance of policy w.e.f., 3.8.1983 to 2.8.1984. The accident occured on 9.5.1984. It is said that the policy is cancelled w.e.f., 9.12.1983 and the premium amount paid by the 2nd respondent has been refunded to him on the ground that he was not the owner of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent was in possession of the vehicle and was operating the vehicle. In law, the person in possession and operating the vehicle has also an insurable interest. It is not necessary that RC holder alone can take policy of insurance. In that view, the cancellation effected by the 4th respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent is not the owner, is not a valid reason for cancellation. Accordingly, the cancellation cannot affect the right of the third party. The 4th respondent-insurer is directed to pay the compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
