AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath
Aggrieved by the Judgment & award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurer has Filed MFA No. 31111/2009 questioning the liability to satisfy the award. MFA No. 30273/2009 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement. On the question of liability the Tribunal held that since the Insurance policy vide Ex. P-10 was in force, respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, necessarily respondent No. 3 is liable to pay compensation.
I have considered the contentions and the records. The plea of the insurer is specific as could be made out from his objections. He has disputed the claim set forth that Santosh was driving the vehicle. His specific plea as stated in para-3 of the objections is that the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in as much as the person driving the vehicle did not possess any valid driving licence. That the vehicle was being driven by one Girish and not Santosh as claimed. In pursuance whereof he relies on Ex. P-1 the complaint which has been lodged by one Maruthi who states that he was the inmate of the bus and after the accident when he got down he enquired with the driver of the car about his name. The driver stated that his name was Girish. The same is the line of cross-examination made by the insurer. Substantially he has disputed the claim of the claimant with regard to the driver of the vehicle.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for he claimant as well as the owner contends that an adequate opportunity has not been given to them in order to justify their case.
On considering the contentions and examining the records I''am of the considered view that there has been a violation in the non-consideration of the appropriate material on record. The complaint would necessarily show that it was one Girish who was driving the vehicle. The Tribunal should have considered the veracity of the claim made in the complaint. The complaint is the first document that comes into existence immediately after the accident. Therefore when in the complaint it is very clearly stated that who was the driver of the vehicle, the tribunal should have applied its mind to the same as well as the subsequent statements made in the course of the proceedings. On an overall view the Tribunal should have considered whether the statements made in the complaint requires to be accepted or not. It is only then the question of liability could have been considered by it. It has not done so Under these circumstances, I''am of the considered view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. Consequently both the appeals are disposed off by directing the tribunal to re-hear the issue and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the material on record. If necessary to re-frame the points for consideration also. The learned counsels on all sides plead that such an exercise could be completed by the end of February, 2013. All counsels submit that they would not seek any adjournment. At their request they shall appear before the Tribunal on 19-12-2012. The Registrar to send back the records forthwith. Both the appeals are disposed off accordingly. Consequently the Judgment & award dated 24-12-2008 passed in MVC No. 32/2007 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional MACT, Basavakalyan, is set aside.
The parties are at liberty to adduce any additional evidence if necessary subject to orders of the Tribunal.