JUDGMENT :

1. First appeal No.282 of 2006 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Insurance Company and First Appeal No. 551 of 2006, both challenging the judgment and award dated 28 September 2005, passed in Claim Petition No.137 of 2003 by Member MACT, Sangli.

FACTS

2. On 28 July 2002 at about 2.00 p.m., in the afternoon, on Sangli-Kolhapur Road near Akashwani Kendra, Sangli, one captain Shailendra Karandikar was driving Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. KA-23/M-466. His wife (Sonali), two months old son Sumedh, Vaijayanti Madhav Akhave (Maternal aunt of Sonali), Madhav Dattatraya Akhave (husband of Vaijayanti) and Devdutta Madhav Akhave minor son of Vaijayanti and Madhav Akhave, were travelling along with him. They were returning from Narsobawadi to Sangli. The Maruti Van was proceeding South to North direction. The owner of the Maruti Van was a family friend Mr. Sanjay Ganesh Patankar resident of Sangli. It is undisputed that captain Shailendra Karandikar was holding valid driving license on the date of the accident.

3. As Maruti Van driven by captain Shailendra Karandikar proceeded towards South to North Akashwani Kendra, truck bearing No. MH-05-1420 (for short “offending truck”) came from the opposite direction from North to South. There was collusion between offending truck and Maruti Van driven by captain Shailendra. As such, accident took place and in the said accident, captain Shailendra, his wife Sonali, son Sumedh, Madhav Akhave died on the spot and Vaijayanti (maternal aunt Sonali) died in hospital. However, the son of Madhav Akhave and Vaijayanti Akhave, Devdutta Akhave, survived.

4. Five claim Petitions were filed in total, arising out of said accident. The present proceedings is pertaining to the death claim of the deceased captain Shailendra Karandikar. Motor Accident Claim Petition No.137 of 2007 was filed by two claimants being the father and mother of the deceased captain Shailendra Karandikar, in MACT Sangli claiming compensation amount of Rs.18,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition from Respondents jointly and severally, i.e., Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending truck and Respondent No.2 New India Assurance Company limited, who were insurer of the offending truck.

5. Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not lead evidence neither file their written statement therefore, the matter proceeded ex-parte against the Respondent No.1 owner of the offending truck.

6. Respondent No.2, the Insurance Company filed their written statement, and denied the contentions of the claim Petition.

7. Claimant lead their evidence by Claimant No.1 stepping in the witness box and leading evidence. The said witness was cross examined by the Advocate for Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company examined two witnesses i.e. Respondent No.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle and witness No.2 Mr. Ajay Paul being the Photographer who clicked photo of the accident site. Both the witnesses of the Insurance Company were examined by the Claimant’s Advocate.

8. Based on the Issues framed, the MACT answered the issues in the following manner :-

“(1) Whether the petitioners prove that their son-Shailendra Shridhar Karandikar died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing No. MH-05/1420 owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2 at the time of accident i.e. on 27.07.2002 ?

(2) Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the said truck was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident?

(3) Whether the respondent no. 2 proves that respondent no.1 has violated the material conditions in the Insurance Policy?

(4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation amount?

If yes, to what extent?

And from whom?

(5) What a