The main legal point established is the interpretation of insurance policy terms and the burden of proof regarding the commercial use of a vehicle.

1. On 15.05.2010, a Tavera car bearing registration no.DL-4C-AD-6598 (car) was being driven by Manoj Kumar, a respondent in these appeals from Katra (Jammu & Kashmir) to Delhi via Jalandhar (Punjab) carrying as passengers Sunil Babu Sharma, his wife Manisha Sharma, relatives Gulab Devi and Uma Devi Dubey besides others. At about 02.00 hours on the night intervening 18th and 19th May, 2010 in the area of District Kapurthala, Punjab, the car driver indulged in rash driving and in the process lost control over it, the vehicle hitting against a truck which was moving ahead. The collision that took place resulted in the above mentioned four persons suffering injuries, Sunil Babu Sharma, Manisha Sharma and Gulab Devi dying in the consequence. The incident eventually became subject matter of investigation by police through first information report no.76/2010 under Sections 279 / 304A / 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered by police station Sadar, Phagwara, Punjab.

2. Four accident claim cases were instituted, one (MACT 348/2010) by the members of the family dependent on Gulab Devi as claimants, they being the first to third respondents in MACA 741/2016; second, (MACT 349/2010) by members of the family dependent on Manisha Sharma, they being the first and second respondents in MACA 740/2016; third (MACT no.350/2010) by the members of the family dependent on Sunil Babu Sharma, they being the first to third respondents in MACA 743/2016, the appellants in cross appeal (MACA 219/2017); and yet another (MACT 13/2011) for and on behalf of the injured Uma Devi Dubey.

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) clubbed all the four cases and held inquiry, deciding them by a common judgment dated 07.06.2016 upholding the case of the claimants that accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the car by the said respondent / Manoj Kumar, holding him and Mukesh Narula (owner of Tavera car), also a respondent in these appeals, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation consequently awarded. The car was admittedly insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer) which was also impleaded in the claim petitions and, thus, was called upon to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation.

4. It may be added here that one of the contentions raised by the insurer during the inquiry was that the car, registered and insured as a vehicle meant for private use had been given on hire for the journey in question. This, per the submissions of the insurer, being in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it sought recovery rights, the said defence, however, having been repelled.

5. The insurance company is in appeal (MACA 749/2016) reiterating its plea for grant of recovery rights. This plea was also pressed by the insurance company in the context of claim cases arising out of death of Sunil Babu Sharma, Manisha Sharma and Gulab Devi and became the subject matter of MACA 743/2016, 219/2017, 740/2016 and 741/2016 which have been decided by a separate judgment of even date. The plea of the insurance company in that regard has been rejected by this court by the observations which are extracted as under :-

“17. The question of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been considered in the impugned judgment and the plea of the insurer rejected by the tribunal for the reasons set out as under :-

“…Ld. Counsel for insurance co. has argued that offending vehicle was used by respondent no.2 for commercial purpose and was given on hiring basis to the occupants of the car for going to pilgrimage to Vaishno Devi at Jammu Kashmir. In this connection, he has relied upon the statement made by the driver to IO after the accident in which driver has stated that vehicle was booked by the owner of the vehicle for going to Vaishno Devi. As discussed in issue no.1, evidentiary value of statement made by driver to IO after accident cannot be more than the evidentiary value of statem