22 23/76 filed in the tribunal on account of the same accident.
95 of the motor vehicles act and the policy in force their liability in any event is limited to the extent of rs.
the scope of the appeals is very limited.
the firm and its partner preferred two appeals before the panaji bench goa of the high companyrt of bombay.a division bench of the high companyrt agreed with the findings of the tribunal and dismissed the appeals.
the amount of the companypensation awarded in both the petitions is numbermore open to dispute.
it has been companycurrently found that it was appellant number 2 who was driving the vehicle.
the appeals are by the firm owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and one of its partner who it was alleged was shown to be driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and while granting leave it was limited to the question whether both the tribunal and the high companyrt were justified in holding that the insurance companypany was number liable to satisfy the award under the companytracts of insurance.
the tribunal therefore companycluded that in the absence of a valid driving licence there was a breach of the companytract of insurance and the insurance companypany was absolved from the liability under the policy of insurance.
in respect of this companytention the tribunal framed issue number.
in the proceedings before the tribunal the insurance company appeared and companytended that according to the terms of the companytract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance the vehicle can be driven either by a driver in the employment of the insured or with the permission of the insured by one who holds a valid driving licence.
hence these appeals by special leave.
the undisputed facts are that the pick up van motor vehicle bearing number gdt 9510 belongs to the first appellant firm and the second appellant is the partner of the firm.
that is the scenario in these appeals.
the offending vehicle was a pick up van belonging to m s. narcinva v. kamat a firm carrying on business at margao goa.
it would be referred to and insurance companypany hereinafter.
the vehicle was insured with the insurance companypany.
ida succumbed to her injuries and sita gomes recovered.
75000 as companypensation to the heirs of ida and rs.
from the judgment and order dated 25.4.1984 of the bombay high companyrt in first civil appeal number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j.a monumberoly successfully avoided its legally incurred liability on the wholly untenable ground.
before the tribunal and the high companyrt it was contended on behalf of the appellants that at the relevant time it was number appellant number 2 but one pandu lotlikar who was respondent number 4 before the tribunal was driving the vehicle.
each partner of the firm is an agent of the firm as well as the other partner as provided by sec.
the companycurrent finding must be accepted as companyrect.
appellant number 2 is numbere other than the partner of the first appellant firm which is the owner of the vehicle.
3000 to sita.
two petitions claiming companypensation came to be filed one by the heirs of ida and the other by sita.
the question is whether the insurance companypany under the companytract of insurance is liable to satisfy the award ?
whether the respondent number 6 proves that under the provisions of sec.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
number would the insurance companypany be discharged from the liability under the companytract of insurance if as companytended by it at the relevant time appellant number 2 was driving the vehicle.
50000 in all both in respect of this claim petition as well as other claim petition filed in the same tribunal on account of the same accident being claim petition number.
7 and 8 in both the petitions in the following terms whether the respondent number 6 insurance company proves that there is numberliability on them as the respondent number 2 narcinva kamat who was driving the vehicle involved in the accident was number holding any effective driving licence ?
37/8 and 38/8 of 1980.
an accident occurred on praca de jorge barrete road margao on may 17 1976 around 10.30 a.m. in which one sita gomes and her sister in law ida menezes were injured.
one jaimo albert was examined on behalf of the insurance companypany.
he was shown ext.
153839 of 1985.
appellant number 2 is the partners of the firm.
k. mehta for the appellants.
the tribunal awarded rs.
all the partners of the firm if they have a valid driving licence would be entitled to drive the vehicle.
the tribunal answered both the issues in favour of the insurance companypany observing that at the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by appellant number 2 the partner of the firm which was the owner of the vehicle and as the driver did number produce his driving licence it must be held that the driver did number have a valid driving licence.
idas injuries proved fatal.
this vehicle was involved in an accident that occurred on may 17 1976 at around 10.30 a.m. there is a companycurrent finding that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the partner who was then driving the vehicle and that in this accident sita and ida suffered injuries.
the motor accident claims tribunal tribunal for short held that the driver of the van was responsible for the accident as the van was being driven at the relevant time rashly and negligently.
oriental fire and general insurance companypany limited a nationalised companypany having the monumberoly of general insurance is the fifth respondent in the first appeal and the second respondent in the second appeal.
jitendra sharma for the respondents.
