Background Facts

1. The appellant has challenged four awards passed by the Claims Tribunal whereby following compensation has been awarded: -

1.1 Compensation for death of Kshama Chopra: Rs.1,00,48,300/-

1.2 Compensation for death of Veena Chopra: Rs.79,84,888/-

1.3 Compensation for injuries to Rajinder Kumar Chopra: Rs.2,83,300/-

1.4 Compensation for injuries to Shailesh Shetye: Rs.9,67,000/-

2. These four appeals arise out of an accident dated 05th May, 2012 between Indigo car bearing No. DL 3TC 0366 and BMW car No.HR 26AV 0007 in Sector-29, Gurgaon. Four persons, namely, Rajinder Kumar Chopra, his wife - Veena Chopra, daughter - Kshama Chopra and son-in-law - Shailesh Shetye were travelling in the Indigo car which was driven by Sanjay Gulati. The accident resulted in the death of three persons, namely, Sanjay Gulati (driver of Indigo car), Veena Chopra and Kshama Chopra, and grievous injuries to two persons namely, Rajinder Kumar Chopra and Shailesh Shetye.

3. The driver of BMW car ran away from the spot after being taken out by the public whereas the driver of Indigo car, four occupants of Indigo car and one occupant of BMW car were taken by the public to Max Hospital.

4. According to the claimants, only two persons were travelling in BMW at the time of the accident and Suraj Sherawat was driving BMW whereas Daksh Jaiswal was sitting on the front seat beside him. The police, on investigation, found this to be correct and the charge-sheet was filed only against Suraj Sherawat. The Court, dealing with the criminal case, has framed the charge only against Suraj Sherawat.

5. The appellant is the insurer of BMW. According to the appellant, there is conscious breach of the insurance policy by the insured by permitting BMW to be driven by Suraj Sherawat who was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

6. Suraj Sherawat admits that he was in BMW at the time of the accident but claims that he was sitting on the front seat beside the driver and the car was being driven by his relative, Rajesh alias Raja, who was holding a driving licence. Rajesh alias Raja appeared before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming to be the driver of BMW but his application was dismissed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.

7. The accident dated 05th May, 2012 between Indigo and BMW is not disputed. The presence of Suraj Sherawat and Daksh Jaiswal in BMW is also not disputed. Suraj Sherawat ran away after the accident, is also not disputed. Following questions arose for consideration before the Claims Tribunal:-

7.1. Whether two or three persons were travelling in BMW at the time of the accident?

7.2. Whether Suraj Sherawat was driving BMW at the time of accident, as alleged by the claimants and appellant or Rajesh alias Raja was driving BMW as alleged by Suraj Sherawat?

8. The Claims Tribunal surprisingly did not give any finding as to the number of persons in BMW and who was driving BMW at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal held that it was unable to decide the above question but still held the appellant liable on the ground that there was a valid insurance policy.

9. The following important questions of law arise in this appeal:-

9.1. Whether a Claims Tribunal can decline to adjudicate the issues raised before it?

9.2. Can the Claims Tribunal pass an award against the Insurance Company without determining who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident?

10. Suraj Sherawat and Devinder Singh (owner of the BMW and father of Suraj Sherawat) are respondents No.2 and 3 respectively in MAC. APP. Nos.594/2016, 612/2016, 615/2016 whereas they are respondents No.6 and 7 respectively in MAC. APP. 616/2016. For the sake of convenience, Suraj Sherawat and Devinder Singh are referred to as “Suraj” and “Devinder” respectively instead of respondent numbers in this judgment.

Factual Matrix

11. On 5th May, 2012 at about 12:15 P.M., Raji