The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and relevant legal principles to determine liability and assess compensation in a motor accident claim.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and award, dated 12th April, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No. 24-S/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Vidya Thakur & others versus Shri Raj Kumar and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.11,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% 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 appellants/owner and driver were saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’).

2. The claimants have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far the same relates to them.

3. The owner and driver have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants/owner and driver argued that the accident was not caused by driver, namely, Raj Kumar and prayed that the impugned award be set aside.

5. The argument is mis-conceived and devoid of any force for the following reasons.

6. The claimants filed a 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 said petition.

7. Precisely, the case of the claimants was that on 21.04.2008, at about 5.50 a.m., driver, namely, Raj Kumar, had driven vehicle-truck bearing registration No. HP-11-B-0299, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which deceased Nardev Singh Thakur sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

8. The respondents filed replies.

9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether deceased expired in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the vehicle of respondent No. 2? …..OPP

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

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ….OPR

3-A Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? ….OPR

4. Relief.”

10. The parties led evidence.

11. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver, namely, Raj Kumar, caused the accident, while driving the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the relevant point of time, in which deceased Nardev Singh Thakur lost his life.

Issue No. 1.

12. The claimants have examined HHC Kanshi Ram (PW-2), who stated that FIR (Ext. PW-2/A) was lodged against driver-Raj Kumar and after investigation, final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against him before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The other evidence, oral and documentary, is on record which is sufficient proof to hold that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the driver.

13. Admittedly, appellant No.1-Smt. Darshan Kaur is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and appellant No.2-Raj Kumar is her son who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly determined Issue No.1.

14. Before I deal with Issues No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 & 3-A.

Issue No. 3.

15. It was for the respondents/owner and driver to prove how the claim petition was not maintainable, have failed to do so.

16. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘the MV Act’ has gone through a sea change and sub-section (6) to Section 158 and sub-section (4) to Section 166 of the MV Act have been added, whereby the Claims Tribunal can treat report of accident forwarded to it under Section 158 (6) of the MV Act as an application for compensation. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 are upheld.

Issue No. 3-A.

17. It was for the respondents/owner and driver to prove how the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Driver-Raj Kumar has caused the accident and FIR (Ext. PW-2/A) was lodged against hi