The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the purpose of granting compensation in motor accident cases is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims, and procedural technicalities should not be a ground to dismiss the claim petition.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and award, dated 29th August, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in MACP No. 31J/2006 titled as Smt. Sharestha Devi and others versus Kishori Lal and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned award”).

2. In order to determine this appeal, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal.

3. The appellants-claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by the medium of the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of 10,00,000/-, as per the break ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that their sole bread earner, namely Parhlad, husband of appellant-claimant No. 1 and son of appellants-claimants No. 2 & 3, became victim of the accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle, i.e. truck, bearing registration No. HP-690747, on 15th September, 2005, at about 10.30 A.M. near 33 Miles, on Pathankot Manali National Highway.

4. It has been averred in the claim petition that when the deceased was unloading marble slabs from the offending vehicle, one of the marble slabs slipped, hit the deceased near the truck, who sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.

5. The claim petition was resisted by the driver, owner-insured and the insurer of the offending vehicle on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

6. The replies filed by the respondents are evasive and not as per the mandate of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”). Thus, it is deemed that they have admitted the averments contained in the claim petition.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 11th December, 2007:-

“1. Whether the death of the deceased had taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 2 by moving the truck No. HP690747 at 33 Miles on Pathankot Manali National Highway as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR

4. Whether the respondent No. 2 being driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as alleged? OPR3

5. Relief.”

8. Parties have led evidence.

9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, however, has assessed the compensation and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/-, as per the details given in para 15 of the impugned award.

Issue No. 1:

10. The moot question is – whether the Tribunal has rightly determined issue No. 1 and dismissed the claim petition? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons:

11. The appellants-claimants have specifically averred in the claim petition that deceased Parhlad was unloading the marble slabs from the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time, one of the marble slabs slipped and hit deceased Parhlad near the truck, have led evidence to this effect.

12. The appellants-claimants have examined HHC Des Raj as PW1, who has proved the report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “CrPC”), filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which has been exhibited as Ext. PW1/A.

13. The Tribunal has made mention of the said report in para 8 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has also held in the same para that there is no dispute about the death of deceased Parhlad. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant portion of para 8 of the impugned award herein:-

“8. …..........The responsibility of unloading the material is alwa