The court emphasized the need to establish the validity of the driving license and the liability of the insurance company in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Heard Mr. S. Pradhan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Lalnunpuia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1 despite notice.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 28.07.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 15/2015 whereby, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (the Tribunal) has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 16.03.2015 to the claimant/appellant.

3. The appellant was also the claimant before the Tribunal and he filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) claiming compensation for the death of his son Sh. Lalfakzuala, who was aged 29 years due to a vehicular accident on 30.01.2015, while he was proceeding from West Phaileng to Dampa Rengpui in Mizoram. The appellant’s son was travelling in an Ashok Layland Truck bearing Registration No. HP35-2528 driven by one Gopal Singh. The accident happened when there was a sudden leakage of gas from the LPG gas cylinder kept inside the cabin of the Truck. The appellant’s son fearing explosion of the cylinder due to the leakage of gas jumped out of the Truck but he unfortunately tumbled on the road and was run over by the rear tyres of the Truck. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre in West Phaileng but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. He was employed by one Sh. Lalbiakliana as a Driver and he was paid a monthly salary of 10,000/-. The Truck was ensured with the respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident and the Driver was holding a valid driving license. The learned Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to equal contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the Driver of the Truck. The learned Tribunal also held that the Driver of the Truck was without a valid license and therefore, the respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the Truck was made liable to pay the awarded compensation, while the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company was completely exonerated from any liability.

4. The respondent No. 1 as owner of the Truck involved did not contest the case whereas the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement contending inter alia that there was no cause of action against the Insurance Company and the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in causing the accident. Furthermore, the deceased was an unauthorized gratuitous passenger travelling in the Truck without authority. Therefore, the Insurance Company did not have any liability to pay compensation to the appellant.

5. The learned Tribunal during the course of the claim proceeding framed 3 issues. They were:-

(i) Whether the claim application is maintainable in the present form and style?

(ii) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if so, who is liable to pay it and to what extent?

6. In support of his claim, the appellant examine 3 witnesses including himself, the case Investigating Officer and Sh. Lalbiakliana, the employer of the deceased and owner of the goods. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company examined the Branch Manager as their only witness. The learned Tribunal thereafter, came to the conclusion and finding that the accident occurred due to the 50/50 negligence of the deceased and the driver of the Truck concerned and also held that the driver of the accident vehicle was without a valid driving license. The Insurance Company was completely exonerated from any liability while the respondent No. 1 was directed to deposit Rs. 9,70,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim before the Tribunal.

7. Appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel, Mr. S. Pradhan submits that the learned Tribunal fails to consider that the appellant had produced the driving license of the driver of the accident veh