MIR DARA SHEKO,J. - (1.) The appeal has been preferred by the appellants, that is, the claimants challenging the award passed by the learned Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. 379 of 2004 on 27.06.2008 on the grounds that the compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- granted on account of the death of Bisadu Roy, the minor son of the claimants is inadequate, and injustice has been caused as liability has been cast on respondent No. 2 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle, instead of the insurer respondent No. 1 i.e. the National Insurance Company Ltd. as the appellants/ claimants could not prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence.
(2.) Mr. Banik, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted since the insurance company, except submitting an extract of the driving licence of the driver, did neither examine the driver nor the owner, nor anybody on behalf of the authority issuing the licence, the Tribunal committed miscarriage of justice in making the owner of the offending vehicle liable to make payment of the award money instead of the insurance company. It was submitted that the Tribunal should have directed the insurance company to satisfy the award with liberty to realise the amount from the insured, that is, the owner of the vehicle. Mr. Banik had relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Sri Sambhunath Das v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sri Gopal Ghosh and Smt. Purnima Ghosh decided by this High Court on 18.01.2013, (ii) Rukmani and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors., reported in 1999 A.C.J. 171, (iii) Suresh Mohan Choprav. Lakhi Probhu Dayal and Ors., reported in 1991 (Vol.-I) ACJ 99 (iv) National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and Ors., reported in 2004 (1) T.A.C. 321 (Supreme Court), (v) National Insurance Company Limited v. Challa Bharathamma and Ors., reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 (vi) New India Assurance Company Shimla v. Kamla and Ors. with New India Assurance Company Shimla v. Kanku and Ors., with New India Assurance Company Shimla v. Sheela Devi and Ors., reported in (2001) 4 SCC 342.
(3.) Mr. M. P. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, National Insurance Company Ltd. relying on Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and on the judgment in Shanti Hazra v. New India Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2015 (2) TAC 198 (Calcutta) submitted that as the driver of the vehicle was not having valid licence there was no obligation on the part of the insurer to pay the awarded sum.;