The court emphasized the liability of the owners-insured and the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principle of contributory negligence in determining compensation for a motor accident.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Both these appeals are outcome of award dated 23.03.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2) Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 57/2002, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,43,470/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the owners-insured of both the vehicles were saddled with liability in equal shares, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’).

2. This judgment shall govern both the appeals.

Brief Facts:

3. The claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. During the pendency of the claim petition respondents No. 1 & 4 in the claim petition, i.e. Meena Kumari and Balwinder Singh were set ex-parte.

5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the deceased Ajay Kumar Awasthi was travelling in truck No.HP24-5675 owned by respondent no.1 on 16.7.2002 from Parara to Theog as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the driver of truck No. HP 24- 5675 now deceased was driving this truck in a rash and negligent manner and had struck it against another offending vehicle HR 58-1212 owed by respondent no.3 and driven by respondent no.4 also in a rash and negligent manner and due to this collision of these offending vehicles the deceased Ajay Kumar Awasthi had died? OPP

3. If issue no.2 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to and from whom? OPP

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form and the petitioners have no locus standi and cause of action to file this petition as alleged? OPR 1 & 3

5. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR1

6. Whether the accident had taken place due to the mechanical defect developed in the truck No. HP 24- 5675 as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR1-2

7. Whether the driver of offending vehicle HP 24-5675 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged, if so its effect? OPR2

8. Whether the offending truck HP 24- 5675 was being plied without valid documents, if so its effect? OPR2

9. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the transport vehicle, if so its effect? OPR 10.

Whether respondent no.4 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle HR 58-1212 on the date of accident? OPR5

11. Whether the respondent 3 and 4 were plying the offending truck HR 58-1212 in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged? OPR5

12. Whether the petitioners are not entitled to interest in view of the act and conduct of the petitioners as alleged? OPR5

13. Relief.”

6. Parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that the drivers of the offending vehicles, i.e. trucks bearing registration Nos. HP- 24-5675 and HR-58-1212, had driven the said trucks, rashly and negligently and the accident was outcome of their contributory negligence, it has also held that Ajay Kumar deceased was travelling in the offending truck No. HP-24-5675.

7. The claimants, drivers and insurers of both the offending vehicles have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them.

Issues 1 & 2.

8. The insured-owners have questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal to the extent that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling them with liability and in discharging the insurer. The findings recorded viz-a-viz Issues 1 & 2 are not, in fact, under challenge. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues 1 &