S.G. Chapalgaonkar JUDGMENT
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.
1. The appellant/insurer (original respondent no.1) has filed this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 26.4.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in MACP No.106 of 2016.
2. The respondent nos.1 to 3 herein had approached the Tribunal seeking compensation towards death of deceased Rahul, who was their bachelor son. The contention of the claimants is that, while Rahul was proceeding on his motorcycle, the truck bearing registration No.MH-34-AB-6235 came from opposite direction and collided against the motorcycle causing fatal injuries to Rahul. Deceased Rahul was 22 years of age and he was a student. According to the claimants, he was their care taker and would have been support of the advance age.
3. The claim was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. The contentions regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased were denied.
4. The Tribunal had framed the issues based on the pleadings of the parties. The claimant no.2 recorded his evidence at exhibit 23. No evidence is recorded on behalf of the respondents. The respondent Insurance Company placed on record a copy of the driving license of the truck driver at exhibit 43 to contend that the driving license was not renewed after expiry and as on the date of the accident, the driver had no valid authorisation. The copy of the driving license placed at exh.43 was admitted in the evidence by consent of the parties. The application was also submitted by the appellant-insurance company vide exhibit 38 to place on record copy of the driving license particulars. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and contentions of the parties, allowed the claim petition thereby directing the respondent no.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- to the claimants along with the interest @ 9% p.a.
5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his endeavor to assail the judgment of the Tribunal and submits that the statutory defence available under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was specifically pleaded in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company. A copy of the driving license particulars of respondent no.5 was placed on record of the Tribunal at Exhibit. 43 and it was admitted by the respective parties. He would submit that the contents of the said document would show that validity of the transport license of the driver had expired on 13.5.2015. The accident took place on 28.6.2015. He would submit that even considering the grace period of 30 days, it can be gathered that driver had no license as on the date of the accident. He would therefore submit that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the defense of the insurer and exonerated from the liability. Mr. Deshmukh would further urge that Tribunal has erroneously decided the issue of negligence and granted excessive interest on compensation amount.
6. Mr. Mayure, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the truck driver was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving in pursuance of the FIR filed against him. The respondents have not adduced evidence to controvert the contents of the police papers. He would invite attention of this Court to the contents of the spot panchnama that shows that the truck went on wrong side and dashed against the motorcycle. Mr. Mayure would further submit that the deceased was prosecuting his studies in Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College. The assessment of the compensation is within the parameters of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd, vs. Paranay Sethi and others. Mr. Mayure, further submits that even this Court finds that t........