IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.6779/2014 C/W M.F.A.Nos.6777/2014, 6778/2014, 6782/2014, 6783/2014 AND 6784/2014 (MV) M.F.A.No.6779/2014 BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., F.P.B.NO.41, OPP:KADAM FACTORY, LINGASUGUR ROAD RAICHUR AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMKUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. VAIDEHI R S W/O LATE M S RAMACHANDRA RAO NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ... APPELLANT 2. R ANJAN S/O LATE M S RAMACHANDRA RAO NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 3. R ANIL S/O LATE M S RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL R/A “SRI GURU KRIPA” SHANTHINAGAR TUMKUR-572102.
4. T M JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLADASAPPA MAJOR OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-37/P-7700 S L N S TRANSPORT J C ROAD TUMKUR-572101.
5. DEVARAJU @ H R KEMPADEVARAJU S/O H RANGAIAH MAJOR R/A C/O NANJAPPA COMPOUND IV MAIN, 3RD CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR TUMKUR-572101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P N NANJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 R5-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:14.09.2018 R4-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.445/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT-5, TUMKUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,55,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
M.F.A.No.6777/2014 BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., F.P.B.NO.41, OPP:KADAM FACTORY, LINGASUGUR ROAD RAICHUR AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMKUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. M S RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE M. SATHYANARAYANA RAO NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A "RAM DHOOTH" D.NO.50/2, 9TH MAIN MATHIKERE BANGALORE 560054.
2. T.M.JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLADASAPPA MAJOR ... APPELLANT OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-37/P-7700 S L N S TRANSPORT J C ROAD, TUMKUR-572101.
3. DEVARAJU @ H R KEMPADEVARAJU S/O H. RANGAIAH MAJOR R/A C/O NANJAPPA COMPOUND IV MAIN, 3RD CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR TUMKUR -572101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P N NANJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED R3-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:30/03/2017) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.443/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK & ADDITIONAL MACT-V, TUMKUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,207/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
M.F.A.No.6778/2014 BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., F.P.B.NO.41, OPP:KADAM FACTORY, LINGASUGUR ROAD RAICHUR AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMKUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. VIDYA @ A R NAGARATHNA W/O M.S. RAGHAVENDRA NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A #50/2, 9TH MAIN MATHIKERE BANGALORE- 560054.
2. T.M. JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLADASAPPA MAJOR OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-37/P-7700 S L N S TRANSPORT J C ROAD, TUMKUR-572101.
3. DEVARAJU @ H R KEMPADEVARAJU S/O H. RANGAIAH MAJOR R/A C/O NANJAPPA COMPOUND IV MAIN, 3RD CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR TUMKUR -572101.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P N NANJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 R2 & R3 –SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.444/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT-V, TUMKUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,15,087/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
M.F.A.No.6782/2014 BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., F.P.B.NO.41, OPP:KADAM FACTORY, LINGASUGUR ROAD RAICHUR AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMKUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. R. ANIL S/O LATE M S RAMACHANDRA RAO NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A “SRI GURU KRIPA” SHANTHINAGAR, TUMKUR-572102.
2. T M JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLADASAPPA MAJOR OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-37/P-7700 S L N S TRANSPORT ... APPELLANT J C ROAD TUMKUR-572101.
3. DEVARAJU @ H R KEMPADEVARAJU S/O H RANGAIAH MAJOR R/A C/O NANJAPPA COMPOUND IV MAIN, 3RD CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR TUMKUR-572101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P N NANJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 R2 –SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT R3- NOTICE D/W V/O DT:14/09/2018) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.446/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK & ADDL. MACT-V, TUMKUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,450/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
M.F.A.No.6783/2014 BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., F.P.B.NO.41, OPP:KADAM FACTORY, LINGASUGUR ROAD RAICHUR AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMKUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT VAIDEHI R S W/O LATE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A "SRI GURU KRIPA" SHANTHINAGAR TUMKUR-572101.
2. T M JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLADASAPPA MAJOR OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-37/P-7700 S L N S TRANSPORT J C ROAD, TUMKUR-572101.
3. DEVARAJU @ H R KEMPADEVARAJU S/O H.RANGAIAH, MAJOR R/A C/O NANJAPPA COMPOUND IV MAIN, 3RD CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR TUMKUR-572101.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.P N NANJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 R2 –SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT R3- NOTICE D/W V/O DT:14/09/2018) ... RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.447/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK & ADDL. MACT-V, TUMKUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,164/-
WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
M.F.A.No.6784/2014 BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., F.P.B.NO.41, OPP:KADAM FACTORY, LINGASUGUR ROAD RAICHUR AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMKUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. G V NAGAVENAMMA W/O LATE M.SATHYANARAYANA RAO NOW AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/A "SRI GURU KRIPA" SHANTHINAGAR TUMKUR-572101.
2. T M JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLADASAPPA MAJOR OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-37/P-7700 ... APPELLANT S L N S TRANSPORT J C ROAD, TUMKUR-572101.
3. DEVARAJU @ H R KEMPADEVARAJU S/O H.RANGAIAH MAJOR R/A C/O NANJAPPA COMPOUND IV MAIN, 3RD CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR TUMKUR-572101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P N NANJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 R3-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:30/03/2017) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.448/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT-5, TUMKUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.13,263/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THESE M.F.A.s COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T These appeals are by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 05.05.2014 passed in MVC Nos.443, 444, 445, 446, 447 and 448 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur.
2. The claimants filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of one M.S.Ramachandra Rao in MVC No.445/2004 and for the injuries suffered by the claimants in other MVC’s. Death of Ramachandra Rao and injuries suffered by the claimants are in a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.11.2003. It is stated that when the deceased and his relatives were returning from Hosadurga after completing the marriage reception of the daughter of the deceased in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA-37/P-7700 belonging to respondent No.1. On the early morning of 20.11.2003, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the vehicle fell into a ditch from the bridge. In the accident, one M.S.Ramachandra Rao died and other claimants suffered grievous injuries.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, all the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their independent objections. The 3rd respondent/insurer mainly contended that the car bearing registration No.KA-37/P-7700 is a private car and policy was issued to private car. The same was used as commercial vehicle i.e. as taxi. Therefore, there is no insurance covered, as such the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. Second respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. He filed his objections contending that he had valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. Respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle filed his objections contending that the vehicle was insured with 3rd respondent and policy was in force as on the date of accident. The first respondent admits that the claimants and deceased were traveling on 19.11.2003 in the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, at the first instance by judgment and award dated 12.10.2009 passed in MVC Nos.443, 444, 445, 446, 447 and 448 of 2004 allowed the claim petitions saddling the liability on the driver and the owner. Against which, MFA Nos.597, 649, 650, 651, 652 and 653 of 2010 were filed before this Court. This court, by its judgment dated 28.06.2011 allowed the appeals setting aside the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.443, 444, 445, 446, 447 and 448 of 2004 and remanded the matters for fresh disposal, in the light of the observations made therein. It was specifically observed that there is no finding as to whether the occupants and Ramachandra Rao were guests of the owner.
5. After remand, the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 05.05.2014 allowed MVC Nos.443, 444, 445, 446, 447 and 448 of 2004 allowed the claim petitions awarding a sum of Rs.12,207/- in MVC No.443/2004; Rs.2,51,087/- in MVC No.444/2004;
Rs.12.55,000/- in MVC No.445/2004; Rs.6,450/- in MVC No.446/2004; Rs.8,164/- in MVC No.447/2004;
and Rs.13,263/- in MVC No.448/2004 and saddled the liability on the insurer. The insurer is before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 05.05.2014 in the aforementioned MVC’s by filing separate appeals.
6. The claimants examined as many as eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P173. On behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company, Kum.M.B.Manoranna was examined as R.W.1 and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that the vehicle bearing registration No.
KA-37/P-7700 is a private car and policy is issued as a private car. But the said car was used for commercial purpose. As such, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. Further, it is submitted that in support of their case, they have examined R.W.1, an officer of the Insurance Company. Further, the evidence of P.W.7 supports the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeals.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the vehicle in question is not used for commercial purpose. It is a private vehicle. Further he submits that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the vehicle is used for commercial purpose and no piece of evidence is produced before the Tribunal, the witnesses examined on behalf of the insurer R.W.1 has failed to prove the contention raised by the Insurance Company. Further, he invites the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8. P.W.7 is one G.Srinivasa Rao, friend of the deceased M.S.Ramachandra Rao, P.W.8 is Mr.Allemulla Beig @ Nawab who is the friend of deceased M.S.Ramachandra Rao as well as friend of respondent No.1-Jayanna. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.
10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire record, the only question which falls for consideration is as to whether the appellant/insurer proves that the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose by producing cogent evidence. Answer to the said question is in the negative for the following reasons.
11. The accident occurred on the early morning of 20.11.2003 involving Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-37/P-7700 and the death of deceased M.S.Ramachandra Rao and injuries suffered by the claimants are not in dispute in these appeals. Insurer is before this Court raising only one ground that the vehicle is question is a private car which is used for commercial purpose. Hence, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation.
12. The defense raised by the appellant/Insurance Company is one under Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the objections filed before the Tribunal, the insurer has taken a specific plea that the policy issued to the vehicle is a private car policy, but the owner of the vehicle used the same for commercial purpose i.e., as Taxi. In support of insurer’s case, the insurer has examined R.W.1-Kum.Manoranna, Assistant Manager of the Company. In her chief- examination, she has stated that the first respondent used the car as commercial taxi by collecting hire from the passengers and thereby violated the policy terms and conditions. But, in her cross-examination, the R.W.1 has stated as follows:
“4. ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁV¸À®Ä ¨ÁrUÉUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ..PÀªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt¸ÀÄwÛgÀ°®èªÁzÀ PÁgÀt G½zÀ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ EgÀ°®èªÁzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉPÉÆnÖzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß «ªÀgÀuÉ EzÉ. CzÉà »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAw®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ, C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥ÀWÁvÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀlÖ ªÀåQÛ¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½®è.”
The above cross-examination portion would indicate that the respondent/Insurance Company has no document to demonstrate that the vehicle was given on hire and as the owner was not traveling along with inmates of the car when the accident took place, the witness states that the car was on hire and was used for commercial purpose. The witness is not definite in her statement. Only on assumption she has deposed that the offending vehicle was used for commercial purpose.
She admits that the Insurance Company has no documents to establish that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and the same was held by the inmates therein.
13. From the evidence on record it could be seen that the deceased M.S.Ramachandra Rao, the first respondent Jayanna, P.W.7-G.Srinivasa Rao and P.W.8-Allemulla Beig were friends and respondent No.1, P.W.7 and P.W.8 were taking legal assistance and advice from the deceased M.S.Ramachandra Rao. It has come on record that the first respondent Jayanna and P.W.8-Allemulla Beig had attended the marriage of daughter of the deceased M.S.Ramachandra Rao and the accident had taken place while the deceased and the family members of the deceased along with R1-Jayanna and P.W.8 were returning from marriage reception from Hosadurga to Tumakuru in different vehicles. The deceased and injured claimants were traveling in the offending car. The examination in chief of P.W.8 at paragraphs Nos.4 and 5 he has deposed as follows:
“4. I further submit that I used to drive our for my brother Kamal Pasha also since he was not knowing car driving. I and my brother had attended the marriage of the daughter of Sri.Ramachandra Rao on 16.11.2003. Sri.Srinivasa Rao, 1st respondent Sri.Jayanna and our many other friends had also attended the marriage on that day.
5. I further submit that I and my brother Kamal Pasha attended the reception arranged at Bridegrooms’ place Hosadurga on the evening of 19.11.2003. We reached Hosadurga at about 5.30 to 6.00 p.m., on 19.11.2003. 1st Respondent Sri.Jayanna who was already there at Hosadurga when we reached, was met by me and my brother who told us that he had brought Sri.M.S.Ramachandra Rao along with his family members in his car TATA SUMO from Tumkur and they had reached Hosadurga at early hours on that day when we were talking casually, as promised by him. At about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., 1st respondent Jayanna, invited me and my brother to have dinner with him at the reception hall so that he can get back early. Sri.Jayanna also told that he had a telephone call from Tumkur and he would return early by bus leaving his vehicle along with his driver to accommodate the return of the family members Sri.M.S.Ramachandra Rao.”
The insurer has cross-examined P.W.8, but nothing worth has been elicited in the cross-examination in support of their contention. In cross-examination also P.W.8 stated that he along with his brother Kamal Pasha attended the marriage and traveled in Jayanna’s Tata Sumo white color vehicle. The Tribunal, at paragraph 30 of its judgment has discussed this contention, which reads as follows:
“30. The petitioner have examined one G. Srinivasa Rao as P.W.7 and he has deposed that the deceased M.S.
Ramachandra Rao was his friend and legal consultant and one week earlier to the marriage of daughter of the deceased, he had visited the office cum residence of the deceased and at that time first respondent had also come there and the deceased introduced them and when the deceased enquired with the first respondent as to whether any person had a vehicle and he can engage it to go to Hosadurga for reception, the first respondent offered his own vehicle and told that he would also go with them. This deposition makes it clear that the first respondent had not given his vehicle on hire to the deceased. If it were to be not true and if first respondent had given his vehicle on hire to the deceased, then nothing prevented the third respondent from seeking summons to first respondent and examining him before the Court to substantiate the contentions of third respondent. But the third respondent has not done so. Moreover the first respondent has filed his written statement to the petitions. If really he had given his vehicle on hire to the deceased, then he would have stated so in the written statement. But the fact that he has not done so, implies that he had not given his vehicle on hire. It also implies that as a friend of the deceased he had given his vehicle for use of the deceased and his family members.”
The appellant/insurer has failed to establish that the vehicle was given on hire or reward. No independent witness was examined on behalf of the Insurance Company in support of their contention that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose in violation of policy conditions. No contra material is produced to disbelieve the version of the claimants that they have not hired the vehicle. The witness examined on behalf of the Insurance Company has failed to say how the accident had occurred and whether the claimants had hired the vehicle. In the absence of any material or evidence in support of their contention, the contention of the appellant/insurer cannot be accepted. The contention and statement of the insurer that the vehicle is used for commercial purpose has remained as statement without there being any proof. The insurer failed to place on record any cogent evidence to prove their contention. The Tribunal has passed a reasoned judgment.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error or perversity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are rejected.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms