The court emphasized the importance of complying with the legal provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 146, 147, and 149, to protect the rights of third parties and ensure that claimants receive compensation.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

By the medium of FAOs No. 357, 359, 360 and 361 of 2012, the owner-insured has questioned the judgment and award, dated 10th May, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi Camp at Karsog (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petitions No. 60 of 2008, 59 of 2008, 62 of 2008 and 63 of 2008, whereby compensation to the tune of 31,320/-, 2,60,000/-, 3,94,000/- and 37,000/- respectively, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the respective claim petitions till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the owner-insured came to be saddled with liability (for short “the impugned awards”).

2. The claimants in Claim Petitions No. 59 of 2008, 63 of 2008 and 60 of 2008 have questioned the respective impugned awards also on the ground of adequacy of compensation.

3. All these appeals are outcome of one motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Dinesh Kumar, while driving jeep, bearing registration No. HP-631797, rashly and negligently, on 5th May, 2008, at about 8.30 P.M. near Rohanda, in which two persons sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries and three persons have sustained injuries. Thus, I deem it proper to determine all these appeals by this common judgment for the reason that similar questions of facts and law are involved in the same.

4. The claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation, as per the breakups and details given in the respective memo of claim petitions.

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

6. Similar set of issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions except issue No. 1. Thus, I deem it proper to reproduce the issues framed in Claim Petition No. 60 of 2008 (subject matter of FAO No. 353 of 2012) herein:-

“1. Whether on 5.05.2008 at Rohanda jeep in question being driven by Dinesh Kumar driver met with an accident which resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner? OPP

2. Whether the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR3

3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR

4. Whether the deceased was travelling in the jeep as gratuitous passenger? OPR3

5. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPP

6. Relief.”

7. Parties have led evidence.

8. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in terms of the respective impugned awards and saddled the owner-insured with liability.

9. There is no dispute about the findings recorded viz-a-viz issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld.

10. The only dispute in FAOs No. 357, 359, 360 and 361 of 2012 is that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in discharging the insurer and saddling the owner-insured with liability. In FAOs No. 349, 350 and 353 of 2012, the adequacy of compensation is in dispute.

11. Issues No. 2 to 4 and part of issue No. 5 so far it relates to as to who is to be saddled with liability are interconnected. Thus, I deem it proper to determine all the said issues together.

12. Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned counsel for the owner-insured, argued that the Tribunal has wrongly decided all the issues. The said argument is not tenable for the reason that the Tribunal has rightly scanned the pleadings, evidence and other material on record.

13. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of the accident, the deceased and injured were gratuitous passengers and the owner-insured has violated the terms and conditions contained in