Serial No. 77 Reg. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Mac App 31/2021 MOHAMMAD RAMZAN WANI ALIAS RAMEEZ … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. Ayoub Bhat, Advocate Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 04.09.2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant herein against award dated 04.06.2015 passed in claim petition titled as “Mohammad Yousuf Wani Vs. Mohammad Ramzan Wani”, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pulwama (for short “the tribunal”). 2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the respondent-2 herein instituted a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, before the tribunal on 05.05.2003 for compensation stating therein that on 09.10.2002, he, the claimant/respondent-2 herein while walking on the roadside at Chechkoot, was hit by a motor cycle bearing Registration No. DL8S-N 7800 coming from Srinagar to Khanabal and driven by respondent 1-appellant herein, rashly and negligently resulting into multiple body injuries and consequently a permanent disability. 3. The respondents in the claim petition were the appellant herein the person plying the motor cycle, and one Manzoor Ahmad the owner of the said motor cycle and National Insurance Company with which the motor cycle was insured, and upon being put to notice by the tribunal, respondents 1 &3 in the claim petition filed objections, thereto whereas respondent-2 in the claim petition did not choose to appear and contest the claim petition and consequently came to be set ex-parte on 26.06.2003. 4. In the objections filed by respondent 1-appellant herein, it came to be denied that the accident was caused by rash and negligent plying of the motor cycle, but on account of the sheer negligence of the claimant himself and that in fact the respondent -1 appellant herein is an experienced driver duly authorized to ply the motor cycle. 5. In the objections filed by the respondent 3 in the claim petition being respondent 2 herein, it came to be stated that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant as the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance for the reason that the driver of the motor cycle was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date of accident. 6. The tribunal on the pleadings of the contesting parties framed the following issues: “(i) Whether on 9th October, 2002 petitioner Mohd. Yousuf Reshi was injured by respondent No. 2 while driving a motor cycle bearing registration No. DL8S-N 7800 which has resulted multiple fractures with puncture wounds to both the legs of the injured and also spleen injury due to reckless and negligent driving of the offending vehicle? OPP (ii) On proving issue No. 1 whether Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and what can be quantum of compensation to which injured is entitled”? OPP (iii) On the failure of petitioner to prove issue No. 1 & 2, whether the petitioner was himself negligent at the time of mishap and thus the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the victim and he has himself contributed to the act of negligence and also that the driver at the relevant time was not holding a valid driving licence for driving the offending vehicle? OPR-3 (iv) Relief?” 7. The claimant-respondent 2 herein besides examining himself as witness also produced 7 witness in the witness box before the tribunal, whereas respondent-1/appellant herein abandoned the proceedings and did not contest the claim petition, whereupon the respondent-1/appellant herein came to be set ex-parte by the tribunal and the insurance company/respondent-1 herein examined one witness. 8. The tribunal upon conclusion of the adjudication of the claim petition in terms of the award under challenge granted Rs. 6,74,000/- to the claimant/respondent 2 herein including interim compensation with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till final realization. The tribunal, however, while saddling the insurance company with the liability to pay the said compensation to the claimant/respondent 2 herein, yet granted liberty to the insurance company/respondent-1 herein to recover the awarded amount from the owner and driver of the motor cycle in equal shares in appropriate proceedings, in that, the tribunal concluded that the driver and owner of the motor cycle have had remained negligent in ensuring that the offending motor cycle was plied by a person having valid and effective licence on the date of accident and thus committed breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 9. 9. The respondent 1in the claim petition and the appellant herein, has challenged the impugned award in the instant appeal on multiple grounds urged in the claim petition fundamentally on the ground that liberty granted to the insurance company respondent-1 herein to recover the awarded amount from the owner and the driver of the motor cycle is illegal, unjustified and based on no evidence. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 10. Perusal of the record of the proceedings would reveal that none has appeared for the respondents herein in the appeal on last date of hearing and none has chosen to appear today as well. 11. As has been noticed in the preceding paras, the tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties being the appellant herein as also the Insurance Company- respondent-1 herein framed aforesaid issues and while putting onus to prove issue 1 &2 upon the claimant-respondent 2 herein, the onus to prove issue 3 was put on respondent- 3 in the claim petition being the Insurance Company respondent 1 herein. 12. Record available on the file would reveal that the claimant respondent 2 herein in order to prove issues 1 & 2 examined 7 witnesses including one Ghulam Nabi Dar Sub Inspector, who have had investigated the FIR bearing No. 152/2002 registered with Police Station Awantipora connected with the investigation of the accident caused by the offending motor cycle wherein the respondent 2 got injured and the said witness has deposed before the tribunal that during the course of the investigation, the offending motor cycle was seized along with its documents including the driving licence of the driver appellant herein and after conclusion of the investigation, it surfaced that due to sheer negligence of the said driver of the offending motor cycle the accident came to be caused as the motor cycle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. 13. Another witness namely Dr. Nazir Ahmad Wani examined by the claimant respondent1 herein stated in the witness box that the claimant was admitted in the hospital as a case of road traffic accident and that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital for 12 days as per the records and for the said 12 days the claimant may have incurred Rs. 2000/- as costs of the medicine. 14. Another witness namely Dr. Shafat Rashid examined by the claimant has stated before the tribunal that he has been the member of the Medical Board as an Orthopedic Surgeon constituted by CMO Pulwama which Board had examined the claimant and had issued a certificate on 09.01.2010, wherein the claimant respondent 1 herein was found to have sustained 10% disability in his legs. 15. Insofar as issue no 3 is concerned, as has been noticed in the preceding paras, the Insurance Company respondent-1 herein examined one witness namely Owais Nazir Wani, Legal Assistant who deposed before the tribunal that an investigator had been appointed by the Insurance Company in the matter who examined and verified the papers of the offending motor cycle as well as the driving licence of the driver of the said motor cycle, which driving licence was found not valid as the said driver was authorized only to ply heavy transport vehicle and not a motor cycle. 16. 16. Perusal of the impugned award tends to show that the tribunal based upon the said evidence lead by the contesting parties and having regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, in particular Section 3 and 10 of the Act has rightly concluded that the driver of the offending motor cycle, appellant herein was not possessed of the requisite driving licence for plying a motor cycle and that having regard to the evidence on record that the said motor cycle was being plied by the driver appellant herein rashly and negligently and in absence of valid driving licence, validly opined that not only the driver of the offending motor cycle but also the owner of the motor cycle committed breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, and, the tribunal though held the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimant-respondent 1 herein on account of loss of income, medical expenses incurred on the treatment, for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, yet rightly provided a liberty to the Insurance Company respondent 1 herein to recover the said amount of compensation from the driver and owner of the offending motor cycle in equal proportions on the premise that the owner of the offending motor cycle breached the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the offending motor cycle to be driven by the driver appellant herein without being possessed of a valid and effective driving licence. 17. Thus what emerges from record is that the tribunal has passed a valid and well reasons award and has not committed any illegality thereof. 18. Resultantly the impugned award does not call for any interference, and same is upheld, as a consequence whereof, the appeal is dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 04.09.2025 “S.Nuzhat” Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reporting Yes/No