The driver's negligence caused the accident, and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation due to the vehicle being plied without a valid permit.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

1. These appeals have been directed against the award, dated 30.4.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 22/97 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur.

2. M.A. No. 472/2001 has been filed by the owner and driver for setting-aside the award against them and for holding the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation, if any, whereas M.A. No. 627/2001 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

3. The facts briefly stated, are as under:

The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Sunil Kindo, a male child aged about 7 years, filed a Claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for his death in the motor accident which took place on 28.10.1996 when the Mini-Bus, bearing registration No. MP 27/9495, ran over the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. On 28.10.96, at about 11 p.m., a video-show was being displayed in the village on account of Durga-Pooja festival. Suddenly, the electric supply failed. On this, driver-Sanjay Gupta got in the Mini-Bus for taking it to village Bagicha for bringing generator-set, as the mini-Bus was standing near the place of show. Any how the Mini Bus went towards the mob and dashed against many persons who were sitting there for watching video. Many of them received injuries. However, it ran over the deceased who was also present in the mob.

The owner of the bus remained ex parte and he did not file written statement. The driver of the bus filed his written statement denying all the facts pleaded by the claimants. The Insurance Company also filed its written statement with a formal denial and pleaded that the vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation.

The claimants examined Singhasai (AW-1), Masatsai Paikra (AW-2), Nistor Kindo (AW-3- father of the deceased) and Dr. Chryst Dular Bakhla (AW-4) in support of their claim petition, whereas, the non-claimants examined Sanjay Kumar Gupta (NAW-1driver) in rebuttal.

The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mini-Bus by its driver and the claimants were entitled to receive lump sum compensation of Rs. 60,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till realization. It was further held that there was no permit issued in favour of the Mini-Bus and there was no proof that any road tax or even the spare tax was paid by the owner, therefore, the owner and driver were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the Insurance Company was exonerated.

4. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the driver and owner, argued that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the Mini-Bus. He also argued that the Tribunal further erred in exonerating the Insurance Company, whereas, the insurance policy was valid on the date of the accident.

5. Mrs. Meena Shastri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, supporting the argument relating to exoneration of the Insurance Company, argued that a low compensation was awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Mr. Abhishek Sinha and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. They argued that the policy of the insurance was subject to certain conditions and the condition of permit to ply the vehicle was not fulfilled by the owner, and even no tax was paid in that period, therefore, the Insurance Company has been rightly exonerated. They relied on the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 517.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case.

8. So far as rash and neglige