The principle of composite negligence and the provisions of section 163A of the MV Act were applied to determine liability and compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant appeals have been filed under section 173 MV Act of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 04.06.2012 passed by learned Judge, MACT Jaitaran, District Pali in Claim Case no. 82/2009, whereby the learned Judge, MACT Cases has partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants for a sum of Rs.3,93,000/-along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and on account of violation of the condition of permit by the owner of the Truck, the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner. The claimants has filed the appeal for the enhancement of the award amount whereas, the Insurance company has challenged the award.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the respondents no. 1 to 4 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran District Pali, stating therein that on 17.05.2009, when the deceased Kishore Ram and Mahendra were travelling on motor cycle driven by one Om Prakash from Jaitaran towards Anandpur Kalu, when near Banjakudi they were hit by one Truck 409 no. RJ-19-GA-221which was coming from opposite direction which was being driven by its driver respondent no. 5 Shravan Kumar in highly rash and negligent manner resulting into taking place of the accident in which all the 3 persons riding on motor cycle namely Om Prakash (driver of motor cycle) and Kishore Ram and Mahendra (pillion riders of the motor cycle) sustained injuries who succumbed to injuries.

3. The respondents no.5 and 6 who were the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle respectively filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle as the motor cycle has gone on the middle of the road as a result of which the truck coming from the opposite direction hit the motor cycle for which no liability could be fastened on the driver of the truck. It was also pleaded by the respondents that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the liability to pay compensation is upon the insurance company.

4. The appellant insurance company filed its reply and submitted that the accident took place on account of negligent of the driver of the motor cycle and not on account of any negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck. The appellant also took plea that the driver of the truck was not having valid and effective driving license and as such the insurance company was not liable to make payment of any compensation to the claimants. It was also pleaded by the insurance company that the truck in question was being driven without permit which was a violation of condition of policy and as such the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation.

5. In support of the claim petition, the claimants produced AW1 Multan, AW-2 Santra Devi and AW-3 Mangla Ram and exhibited 11 documents. Whereas, the insurance company produced NAW-1 Ghanshyam Singh and exhibited 2 documents.

6. The learned Judge, MACT cases after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case decided issue no.1 and 2 partly in favor of the claimants by holding that since it was head on collision between the offending vehicle and the motor cycle and 3 persons were sitting on the motorcycle, therefore, the liability of the driver of the motor cycle to the extent of 25% shall be fastened and the remaining liability of 75% shall be fastened on the driver of the Truck.

7. Issue no. 4 related to the objections of the insurance company regarding its non-liability of making payment of compensation to the claimants on account of the Truck being plied in violation of policy conditions as no permit of the Truck was produced by the owner of the vehicle, even though the vehicle weight was of 9600 kilogram, however, no permit was produced by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, adverse inference wa