The insurer must plead and prove any grounds for defense, such as the driver not having a valid license, and failure to do so cannot be used to discharge the insurer from liability.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice.

Both these appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely Shri Narinder Singh Patial, while driving Maruti Van, bearing registration No. HP- 23 A – 1468, belonging to Shri Sarwan Singh, rashly and negligently, on the intervening night of 26th and 27th November, 2005, at about 12.20 A.M., at Dehlan Mor, District Una. Thus, I deem it proper to dispose of both these appeals by a common judgment.

2. In FAO No. 196 of 2008, the appellant-owner-insured has questioned the award, dated 30th November, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006, titled as Bimla Sharma & another versus Sarwan Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 2,98,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2, as per the apportionment made in the award, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of deposit of the entire award amount till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-I) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

3. The appellant-owner-insured was saddled with liability and the insurer-respondent No. 5 came to be exonerated. Though, the appellant-owner-insured was saddled with liability, but the insurer-United India Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award, at the first instance, with a right to recover the same from the insured-owner-appellant. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the impugned award-I only to the extent of saddling him with liability and discharging the insurer-respondent No. 5 from liability.

4. FAO No. 28 of 2011 is directed against the award, dated 2nd November, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) in MAC Petition No. 25 of 2008, titled as Rajesh Kumar versus Shri Kamal Kishore and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,17,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 and against the insurer-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the impugned award-II), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

5. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award-II on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the appellant-insurer with liability.

6. In order to determine the issues and return findings in both the appeals, viz-a-viz, the questions in dispute, it is profitable to give a brief resume of the facts of the case.

Brief facts:

7. In both the claim petitions, it is averred that the driver, namely Shri Narinder Singh Patial, had driven the Maruti Van, bearing registration No. HP-23 A 1468, rashly and negligently, during the intervening night of 26th and 27th November, 2005, hit motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-20 B-5303, which was being driven by Shri Deepak Sharma and Shri Rajesh Kumar was the pillion rider alongwith Shri Aman Kumar, sustained injuries. Shri Deepak Sharma succumbed to the injuries alongwith Shri Aman Kumar (claimant in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006).

8. The claimants have sought compensation in both the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the memo of claim petitions. The insured-owner, the driver and the insurer-United India Insurance Company have filed objections. In both the claim petitions, the insurer-United India Insurance Company has not denied the averments, viz-a-viz, occurrence of accident in its reply. In fact, the replies are evasive.

9. The claimants, in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006, which is the subject matter of FAO No. 196 of 2008, has specifically averred that thier son, Aman Kumar, became victim of accident, which was caused by the driver of offending Maruti Van, details of which are given in paras 8, 9 and 23 of the claim petition. The owner-Sarwan Singh has not replied the averments specifically. However, in reply to para 22 and 23, it is pleaded that that the driver-Narinder Singh