JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Despite service of notice, none of the respondents in these Special Leave Petitions have entered appearance or are represented today to contest the same. All these Special Leave Petitions involve a common question of law as to whether an Insurance Company can be held to be liable for payment of compensation to passengers travelling in a public transport in breach of the conditions of the permit granted to the owner of the vehicle for operating the same. They are, therefore, taken up for consideration together. Delay, if any, in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Since the facts in all these appeals are the same, the facts in SLP (C) No. 24188 of 2008, United Insurance Company Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam & Ors., are referred to in this judgment.

4. The Respondent No.5, Shri Surdeep Gusain, obtained an insurance policy insuring his Jeep No. UP-06-6244 with a sitting capacity of six persons, including the driver, for the period covering 23rd July, 2004 to 22nd July, 2005. In other words, besides the driver, the vehicle was entitled to carry a maximum number of five passengers.

5. On 18th August, 2004, the aforesaid vehicle carrying fifteen passengers from Village Nansu to Dharkot Thapli, while being driven by Bharat Singh Rawat, the father of the respondents herein, fell into a ditch resulting in his death and the death of the majority of the passengers while causing serious injuries to the remaining passengers. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the legal representatives of the deceased filed an application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri. On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether on 18.8.2004 the deceased Bharat Singh was driving the vehicle No.UP.-06/6244 on Jakheti-Nansu Road and due to the mechanical fault in the vehicle the jeep met an accident due to which Bharat Singh died ?

(2) Whether the aforesaid accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased?

(3) Whether on the date of accident the alleged vehicle was being plied according to the conditions of insurance policy and permit?

(4) Whether the complainants are entitled for any relief? If yes, how much and from whom?

6. In order to support their claim, the claimants filed the First Information Report, which was lodged by the owner of the jeep, Shri Surdeep Singh, on 19th August, 2004, at Patti Patwari Kafolsue, wherein it was stated that he had given the vehicle to Bharat Singh and that it had met with an accident which killed seven persons on the spot and caused injuries to the others. The jeep was badly damaged, but the cause of the accident was not known. On the basis of the said report, a case was lodged against Bharat Singh under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code. The witness of the Insurance Company, who was examined as OPW.1, deposed that fifteen persons were travelling in the jeep at the time of the accident, but there was no negligence on the part of the driver.

7. The claimants also filed the driving licence of the deceased, Bharat Singh, which showed that the licence was valid till 12.3.2007. The photocopy of the registration certificate of the vehicle was also filed by the owner of the vehicle which established the fact that it was valid on the date of the accident and that taxes had been paid upto date and the fitness of the vehicle was valid from 13.8.2004 to 12.8.2005. In addition, a photocopy of the Insurance Cover Note was also filed to indicate that the vehicle was duly insured from 23.7.2004 to 22.7.2005. Accordingly, on the date of the accident, all the papers of the vehicle were valid, the vehicle was legally insured and was being driven by Bharat Singh holding a valid and effective driving licence. However, on behalf of the Insurance Company, the Appellant herein, it was stated that on the date of the accident, passengers in excess of the number covered by the insurance policy were being carried i