The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the Insurance Company was liable for compensation as it failed to prove the vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident.

Judgment :

1. The Civil Misc. Appeal nos. 3210/2017, 3138/2017, 3139/2017 and 3140/2017 have been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) assailing the judgment and award dated 01.09.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in MAC Case Nos. 36/2013, 37/2013, 38/2013 and 39/2013 and whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the respective claimants under Section 166 of the Act and awarded compensation of Rs.01,50,000/-, Rs.06,19,792/-, Rs.07,40,368/- and Rs.04,81,336/- respectively in favour of respective claimants along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the respective claim petitions, while fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company along with the respondent/owner and respondent/driver, jointly and severally.

2. Since all these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 01.09.2017 (hereinafter as ‘impugned award’)therefore, the same are being decided vide this judgment.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.09.2012, Kumari Hansika, along with her mother Smt. Kanta Devi, Smt. Rami Devi, and Smt. Rupa Devi, was walking from her house to agricultural field. At approximately 07:30 A.M., while they were walking on the NH-11 roadside near Sesomu School, Shri Dungargarh, the car bearing registration number RJ-14-CN-5411, being driven by respondent-driver, came from direction of Bikaner to Jaipur at high speed and negligently hit them. Due to the accident, Kumari Hansika and Smt. Rami Devi died on the spot, while Smt. Rupa Devi and Smt. Kanta Devi succumbed to their injuries during treatment. An FIR No. 489/2012 was registered at Police Station Dungargarh, District Bikaner, and after an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against respondent-driver (Ghanshyam). Subsequently, the claimants filed the respective claim petitions seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased persons.

4. The respondent-owner, in its reply to the claim petitions, denied the allegations, stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased themselves and not due to the fault of the respondent-driver. It was also submitted that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and that the vehicle was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. If any compensation is awarded in favour of the claimants, the liability should be fastened solely on appellant-Insurance Company.

5. The Appellant-Insurance Company, in its reply to the claim petitions, denied liability, contending that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and was under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, it was claimed that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant- insurance company, and the covernote No. 31660017(Ex.NA01) was also not issued by the appellant-insurance company. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed seven issues.

6. The claimants examined four witnesses and produced 23 documentary evidences (from Ex.1 to Ex.16). The respondents examined two witness and produced 20 documentary evidences (from Ex.NA-01 to Ex.NA-20).

7. After hearing all the parties and perusing the material available on the record, the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the respective claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.01,50,000/- (in MAC case no. 36/2013), Rs.06,19,792/- (in MAC case no. 37/2013), Rs.07,40,368/- (in MAC case no. 38/2013) and Rs.04,81,336/- (in MAC case no. 39/2013), along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petitions, while fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company along with the respondent/owner and respondent/driver, joint