ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO. 44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025, REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI K. VARADARAJAN Vs. SRI K.C. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O LT. CHAKRAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant in MVC No. 5667/2005, which is fastened on them by the Claims Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to their rank in the claim petition. FACTS IN BRIEF

(2.) THE claimant - K.C. Subramanya was travelling in Tata Victra bearing No. KA -03 -B -8180 driven by its driver Prasanna Babu on 25.4.2005. At about 03.30 hours when the said vehicle came near Sundepalli on NH -7 in Kurnool Donu road, the vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. The claimant sustained injuries. The police registered a case against the driver of the vehicle in Crime No. 49/2005. In fact, the wife of the claimant, who was travelling with him died. He preferred a claim petition in MVC No. 5667/2005 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. In fact, another injured person in the said accident had also filed separate petition. Respondents filed common defence denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. The insurance company did not dispute the insurance coverage to the vehicle involved in the accident. They specifically pleaded that their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The claimants have to prove that the documents of the vehicle like RC, FC, permit and payment of premium in respect to the said passenger carrying on commercial vehicle is valid and current as on the date of the accident. Further they have to establish that the person who was driving the vehicle had valid and effective driving license to drive the same as on the date of the accident. The owner of the vehicle willfully entrusted the vehicle to a person who was without valid license and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) CLAIMANT in order to establish his case examined himself as PW.1 and produced 13 documents which are marked as Exs.P.1 to P. 13. On behalf of the respondents, one of the Insurance Company official has been examined as RW.1 and they also produced four documents, which are marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4.