IMPORTANT POINT
The liability of the insurance company under Section 149 of the MV Act and the sufficiency of evidence to prove rash and negligent driving in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT

1. This common judgment shall decide the above noted appeals, which have been preferred by the appellant/insurance company involving the same vehicle which was involved in an accident, which occurred on 28.05.2015, resulting in death and injuries to its passengers. These appeals arise out of five different claim petitions[MACT 450048/16 (Old No. 261/14) challenged in MAC. APP. 360/19; MACT 450044/16 (Old No. 257/14) challenged in MAC. APP. 361/19; MACT 450045/16 (Old No. 258/14) challenged in MAC. APP. 362/19; MACT 450043/16 (Old No. 259/14) challenged in MAC. APP. 364/19; and MACT 450050/16 (Old No. 260/14) challenged in MAC. APP. 369/19] filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[MV Act] by the respective claimants, which were allowed and compensation has been awarded.

2. Needless to state that there arises a common issue of law and of facts, and therefore, the instant appeals can be conveniently disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, MAC. APP. 360/2019 shall be the lead matter. However, this Court shall also briefly delve into the facts of each of the individual cases so as to provide a complete background of the claims.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The facts which are common to the instant matters are that five passengers including the driver got injured in the motor accident on 28.05.2015 that occurred sometime between 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. near Chowki Chhijarsi, NH-24, PS Pilakhwa, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, apparently due to rash and negligent driving of ECCO Maruti Car bearing registration No. UP-14CF-1876, which was being driven by its driver Harbeer Singh, who also sustained fatal injuries. Sandhya Devi, her sister Kumari Chanchal and Kumari Lavi besides their father Harbeer Singh also sustained injuries and died while other relatives sustained injuries of various nature. Learned Additional District Judge-01/MACT, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi,[Tribunal], based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues as follows: Firstly, about whether or not death or injury occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver Harbeer Singh; Secondly, about the entitlement of compensation, and if so, to what amount; and Thirdly, the relief to be given.

4. Learned Tribunal decided issue No.1 in each of the aforesaid claims petitions in favour of the claimants and vide issue No.2, holding it in favour of entitlement of each claimants, compensation of different amounts had been granted to the claimants depending upon whether they are legal heirs of the deceased and/or victims.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED:

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company urged that the offending vehicle or ill-fated motor car was insured as per the insurance policy valid for the period from 28.04.2014 to 27.04.2015, wherein it was categorized as a `Saloon Car, 1196 CC, manufacturing year 2014 and it had a sitting capacity of 7 persons'. It was urged that evidently, 12 persons were travelling in the ill-fated car, which was in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and it was urged that in such cases, it was the registered owner of the vehicle, who should have been made liable to pay the compensation to the victims. Further, it was vehemently urged that the learned Tribunal has not awarded recovery rights to the appellant/insurance company despite a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in the aforesaid appeals alluded to the observations made by the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 holding that the deceased-driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving which has resulted in the death of some passengers as well as injuries to others. As regards the liability of the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation, reference has been invited to decision in National Insurance Company v. Anjana Shayam, (2007) 7 SCC 445.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the responden