The main legal point established is that a 'Package Policy' or 'Comprehensive Policy' covers the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car, and the insurer must prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger to avoid liability.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

All these five appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Manoj Kumar, while driving Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP- 51-3461, rashly and negligently on 23rd October, 2006, at about 6.30 A.M., near Wangtoo, District Kinnaur, in which some of the occupants of the car, including the driver, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The occupant, namely Shri Bhagi Rath, sustained injuries. Therefore, I deem it proper to determine all these appeals by a common judgment.

2. The dependents of the deceased, namely Shri Berfia Ram, Shri Jagat Ram, Shri Babu Ram and Shri Surat Ram, filed claim petitions, being M.A.C. Petition No. 38-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Batu Devi & others versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others; M.A.C. Petition No. 39-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Asha Devi & others versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others; M.A.C. Petition No. 40-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Bantu Devi & another versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others and M.A.C. Petition No. 41-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Jamana Devi & others versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 15,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 15,00,000/-, respectively, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions.

3. The injured, namely Shri Bhagi Rath, filed claim petition, being M.A.C. Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2008/06, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

4. M.A.C. Petitions No. 40-S/2 of 2008/06, 41-S/2 of 2008/06 and 46-S/2 of 2008/06 came to be decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) on 28th August, 2009, and M.A.C. Petitions No. 38/S/2 of 2008/06 and 39-S/2 of 2008/06 came to be decided by the Tribunal) on 5th March, 2010, whereby compensation came to be granted in favour of the claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned awards”).

5. The owner-insured, the insurer and the legal representatives of the deceased driver of the offending car resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

6. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed six issues, which are common, though separately, in all the claim petitions except in M.A.C. Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2008/06. Therefore, it is apt to reproduce the issues framed in Claim Petition No. 38-S/2 of 2008/06 herein :

“1. Whether the death of Berfia Ram was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving by the deceased Manoj Kumar as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so the amount thereof and by whom to be paid? OPP

3. Whether the vehicle has been sold by respondent No. 1 to the deceased Manoj Kumar. If so the effect thereof? OPR-1

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondent No.2? OPR-2

5. Whether the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being plied in violation of the insurance policy as alleged? If so the effect thereof? OPR-2.

6. Relief.”

7. In M.A.C. Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2008/06, the following issues came to be framed :

“1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased Manoj Kumar as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so the amount thereof and by whom to be paid? OPP

3. Whether the vehicle has been sold by the respondent No. 1 to the deceased Manoj Kumar. If so the effect thereof? OPR-1

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPR-2

5. Whether the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being plied in violation of the insurance policy as alleged? If so the effect thereof? OPR-2.

6. Reli