The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence in establishing liability and determining compensation in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. On 12.12.2008 at about 12:50 AM at Tri Nagar, Road no.37, near Kanhaiya Nagar, Delhi, an accident occurred involving two motor vehicles, viz. a maruti car bearing registration no.DL-2C-AG-3179 (hereinafter referred to as “the car”) and a scorpio jeep bearing registration no.DL-8CJ-5582 (hereinafter referred to as “the jeep” or “the offending vehicle”). The car, at the time of the collision, was driven by Rakesh Garg. His wife Uma and two sons Mukul and Rishabh were travelling with him. The passengers in the car also included Tanvi, daughter of Mukesh Garg (brother of Rakesh Kumar). The jeep, the vehicle admittedly owned by Braham Prakash, on the other hand, was statedly driven by his son Mandeep Shokeen. As a result of the collision Rakesh, Uma, Mukul, Rishabh & Tanvi suffered injuries and died in the consequence.

2. Five claim petitions under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”) came to be filed, they having been registered as MACT case nos.178/09, 180/09, 181/09, 182/09 & 183/09. In each of said claim cases, presented before the motor accident claims tribunal (“the tribunal”), Mandeep Shokeen and his father Braham Prakash were impleaded as the first and second respondent respectively.

3. Concededly, the jeep was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company against the third party risk and, thus, the insurer was impleaded as third respondent in each claim case.

4. The claim cases were contested by the said second respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the owner of the offending vehicle”) on the plea that the jeep was driven not by his son Mandeep Shokeen but by one Vijay Singh who was holding a valid license.

5. The claim cases were inquired into by the tribunal and decided by separate judgments passed on 30.09.2011.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for both sides at bar, at the hearing on these appeals, that the evidence adduced before the tribunal was commonly led. The pleadings with regard to the involvement of the jeep and, particularly of the driver (first respondent in claim petition) were common in each case. The tribunal, by identical reasoning set out in each judgment, rejected the contention and evidence adduced by the owner of the offending vehicle about the jeep having been driven by Vijay Singh rather than by his son Mandeep Shokeen. The findings to the effect that the accident had occurred due to rash/negligent driving on the part of Mandeep Shokeen were returned thus holding him to be the principal tort-feasor and consequently holding his father Braham Prakash (owner of the offending vehicle) vicariously liable. Since Mandeep Shokeen was admittedly a minor – his age is stated by his counsel to be 16 years old at the relevant point of time - the tribunal held that there was breach of conditions of the insurance company and, thus, absolved the insurer of any liability.

7. On the basis of material placed on record with regard to the age, proof of avocation and income, and the dependency loss, compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants in each case.

8. On account of death of Rakesh Kumar, his parents and third son Anshul were awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,28,818/-. On account of death of Uma, her son Anshul was awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,82,250/-. On account of death of Mukul and Rishabh, their surviving brother Anshul was awarded Rs. 2,59,200/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively as compensation.

9. In each case, interim awards on the principle of no fault liability in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been earlier granted in the claim petitions under Section 140 of MV Act. While passing the final awards, the tribunal directed the said amounts of Rs. 50,000/- that had been earlier paid, to be adjusted against the amounts now made payable. It may be added here that said interim award were honoured at that stage by the insurance company. Since, in final reckoning, it was held not liable to pay on account of breach of the pol