The main legal point established is that compensation can be awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on evidence of the accident and loss of dependency assessment.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 14.09.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACP No. 160/2014, titled Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. v. Sh. Ganga Prasad & Ors..

2. The above Claim Petition was filed by the Claimants/respondent no. 1 and 2 herein, stating that on 28.09.2013 at about 10:30 PM, Shri Vijay Rai, the deceased, along with his friend, Shri Umesh Rai, were going on bicycles. When they reached Mahipalpur Road in front of a Girls School, a truck bearing registration no.HR-55N-3355 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'), being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 3 herein, hit the bicycle of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where he unfortunately expired on 12.10.2013.

3. Based on the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.3 herein. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,01,647/- as compensation in favour of the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein/claimants. It was further directed that the appellant herein shall deposit the awarded amount in the bank account of the claimants within 30 days of the passing of the Award, failing which, it shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting a right to recover the compensation paid in favour of the respondent nos.1 and 2 from the respondent nos.3 and 4, the driver and the owner of the Offending Vehicle. He submits that as per the investigation report received from the private investigator appointed by the appellant, the driving licence of the respondent no.3, on the date of the accident, was fake/not genuine. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to a report dated 09.03.2015 issued by one Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate/Investigator.

5. The learned Tribunal, however, has rightly rejected the above submission of the appellant, placing reliance on the testimony of R2W2- Shri. Raj Kumar, Clerk from ARTO Mathura, who was a witness produced by the owner of the Offending Vehicle. I may quote the relevant observation of the learned Tribunal as under:

"35. In its written statement R-3 the insurance company has pleaded that as per DAR the licence of R-1 was found to be fake, hence the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. However, during the course of proceedings R-2 has examined R2W2 Sh.Raj Kumar, Clerk from ARTO, Mathura who has proved the record in respect of licence no.DL891/MTR/90 and stated that the said licence was issued in the name of Sh.Ganga Prasad/R-1 and was valid from 21.5.1990 and was valid upto 14.12.2004. Thereafter the said licence was renewed on 18.05.2013 and was valid upto 17.05.2016. He also stated that Rs.150/- was paid a penalty for the period from 19.3.2011 to 17.05.2013. He further stated that R-1 was authorised to drive Motorcycle and LMV(Pvt.) and he was also authorised to drive HTV till 17.05.2016 and proved the record Ex.R2W2/1. In the cross- examination he denied the suggestion that the entry related to 18.5.2013 to 17.5.2016 is fabricated.

36. Thus as per deposition of R2W2 the driving licence of R-1 was valid on the date of accident and he was authorised to drive HTV also. Hence the defence as pleaded by the respondent insurance company regarding fake driving licence of R-1, becomes forceless."

6. In absence of any evidence that would contradict the above finding of the learned Tribunal, mere report of the private investigator cannot sustain the challenge to the impugned Award. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the above finding of the learned Tribunal.

7. The next challenge of the lea