The insurer can only contest liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the grounds available under Section 149, and intoxication of the driver is not a ground available to the insurer under this section.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

A vehicular traffic accident has given birth to these five appeals, thus I deem it proper to deal with all these appeals by this common judgment.

2. Claimants have filed claim petitions seeking compensation as per the break-ups given in their respective claim petitions, on the grounds taken therein.

3. The respondents resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in their respective memo of objections.

4. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed common issues in all the claim petitions. It is apt to reproduce the issues framed in Claim Petition No. 56 of

2006:-

1. Whether the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-02A-3010? …OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to

compensation and if so, to what extent at what rate of interest? …OPP

3. Whether the vehicle in question was not driven by the authorized driver and the driver

was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? …OPR-2

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven under intoxication. If so, its effect? ….OPR-2

5. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not possessing valid fitness certificate and route permit etc. at the time of the accident. If so, its effect? …OPR-2

6. Whether there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, its

effect? …OPR-2

7. Relief.”

5. The claimants have led evidence in all the claim petitions. The insurer, owner and driver have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants has remained unrebutted.

6. There is ample evidence on the record to prove that on 06.07.2006 at about 6.20 p.m., near Sungra on National Highway No. 22 in Kinnaur District, the driver, namely, Sanjiv Kumar alias Kaka had driven the vehicle- Marshal taxi bearing registration No. HP-02A-3010, rashly and negligently and caused the accident. This issue is not disputed. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld.

7. Before dealing with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 6.

8. It was for the insurer to prove all these issues, has not led any evidence, thus has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly determined issues No. 3 to 6 against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.

9. Though, the Tribunal has awarded meager amount in all these appeals, the claimants have not questioned the same, are within their rights to question the adequacy of compensation in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. But, I deem it proper not to enhance the compensation, for so many reasons. The claimants are fighting for their rights since 2006, have not received the compensation so far, is against the concept of purpose of granting compensation Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld.

10. The insurer has not led any evidence on Issues No. 3 to 6. Thus, it can not lie in the mouth of the appellantinsurer that the driver was driving the offending vehicle in the state of intoxication. In terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988, the ground of intoxication is not available.

11. This Court in Khem Chand versus Smt. Uma Devi and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 1, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para-4 of the judgment., supra, herein:-

“4. The law is very well settled that a claim which falls within the purview of an Act policy i.e. a liability falling within the ambit of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( the Act) can only be contested by the Insurance Company on the grounds available to it under Section 149 of the Act. It is not permitted to contest the proceedings on an