Judgment

BY THE COURT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant–owner of the offending vehicle, assailing the judgment and award dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer in MACT Case No.45/2017, whereby compensation of Rs.4,81,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 13.11.2017 has been awarded in favour of the claimant against non-claimant Nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner), while non-claimant No.3–Insurance Company has been exonerated from liability to satisfy the award.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant Khudabakhsh, aged about 10 years at the time of the accident, was travelling in Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ-15-GA-4945 along with his relatives and acquaintances for visiting the Dargah at Madhala Sharif. On 11.05.2017, after staying overnight, they were returning on 12.05.2017 at about 9:00 a.m. It is alleged that respondent No.2– Amin Khan was driving the aforesaid vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Near the border of village Devikot, the vehicle allegedly went out of control and overturned, as a result whereof the claimant sustained injuries on his abdomen and other parts of the body. The accident was reported to the police and, after investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant claimed compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him and the treatment undergone at different hospitals.

3. The appellant–owner and respondent No.2–driver contested the claim petition. While denying the allegations for want of knowledge, they disputed the manner of accident and the injuries claimed by the claimant. In the alternative, it was pleaded that, if any liability for payment of compensation was found, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3–Insurance Company and the driver was holding a valid driving licence; hence, the liability ought to be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

4. Respondent No.3–Insurance Company also contested the claim petition. It denied the occurrence as alleged and pleaded, inter alia, that the claimant was not an insured passenger; that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle; that passengers were being carried therein unauthorisedly and without payment of any premium towards passengers; that the driver was not holding a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle; and that the vehicle was being operated in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was accordingly pleaded that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner or satisfy the claim.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues, including as to whether the accident occurred on 12.05.2017 on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-claimant No.1; whether non- claimant No.1 was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment and for the benefit of Non-claimant No.2–owner; whether the claim petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds pleaded by the non-claimants; and whether the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally.

6. In support of his claim, the claimant examined his father as AW-1 and himself as AW-2 and produced documentary evidence, including the police record, site plan, injury report, seizure memo, mechanical inspection report, registration certificate, insurance policy, fitness certificate, driving licence and discharge/treatment documents. The owner examined himself as NAW-2, while the Insurance Company examined its witness Gajendra Jain as NAW-1.

7. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence, held the first two issues in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. It found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negli