ORDER :

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1988’) questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 03/2013, whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Claims Tribunal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.07.2006 at about 4.45 a.m. deceased Munna Singh and others were going by Pickup Van, i.e. Mahindra Jeep from Balconagar, Korba to Raipur for purpose of fetching vegetables, while carrying some materials as well. According to the claim petition, the vehicle in question having its Trade Certificate Jeep No. MP-26T-0373, Engine No. GA-51K-64794, Chassis No. MA1ZG2GAA51K40045 was owned by Non-applicant No. 2-Arvind Pal and was insured with Non-applicant No. 3- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, namely, Kishore Kumar Namdev (Non-applicant No. 1). As a result of which, he lost his control and owing to which, deceased Munna Singh fell down and died on the spot while one Kripa Shankar was injured.

3. On account of the aforesaid accident, the Claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased, instituted a claim under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 submitting inter alia that the deceased, 32 years old, was a vegetable vendor and used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month and thus claimed total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/- under various heads.

4. The aforesaid claim has been contested by the Non-applicants. Non-applicant No. 1 Kishore Kumar Namdev, the driver of the offending vehicle, while denying the fact that the alleged accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving, pleaded further that some unknown vehicle “Truck” which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came from opposite side in a high speed and dashed his vehicle, resulting into the sad demise of Munna Singh. It is pleaded further that the driver of that unknown vehicle alone was responsible for the alleged accident.

5. Non-applicant No. 2, the owner of the offending vehicle, while denying the fact that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle pleaded that the Claimants have obtained a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from him and assured him not to file any petition against him, and therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed. While Non-applicant No. 3, the insurer has contested the claim by saying that some unknown vehicle “Truck” was involved in the alleged accident and alternatively pleaded further that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for it. It is contested further on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence and the same was being used in violation of the insurance policy by carrying passengers at the relevant time. As such, no liability could be fastened upon it.

6. In support, the Claimants have examined as many as two witnesses including an eye-witness of the alleged accident, while the owner has examined himself and the insurer has produced one of its witnesses.

7. After considering the evidence led by the parties, it has been held by the Claims Tribunal, while entertaining the issue No. 1, that the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Kishore Kumar Namdev, the driver of the offending vehicle. It held further that the vehicle in question, insured as Goods vehicle, was being used in violation of its policy by carrying passengers by the driver, who was not authorised to drive the s