The necessity of proving negligence for maintaining a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the limitations of third-party insurance coverage.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, 'Act') is directed against Award dated 28.5.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Claim Petition No. 21 of 2011, titled Kumari Pooja and another vs. Tot Ram and others, whereby claim petition having been filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants') came to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 4.5.2011, a car bearing registration No. HP34A-5283, in which deceased Lata Devi was sitting, rolled down, as a consequence of which, above noted person sustained multiple grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to her injuries. Claimants, who happen to be children of above named deceased, by way of claim petition, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 Lakh on account of death of their mother. Claimants alleged that at the time of alleged incident, deceased was hale and hearty and was earning Rs.15,000/- from her business besides doing agricultural work. Claimants claimed that they being solely dependent upon the deceased, have been deprived of love and affection due to untimely death of the deceased and they have also suffered great loss as such, they are entitled to compensation.

3. Respondent No.1, who happened to be father of the claimants and husband of the deceased, though admitted the factum with regard to the accident and death of the deceased, however, specifically denied that the FIR has been registered on wrong and concocted facts. Respondent No.1 also admitted the income and occupation of deceased as claimed in the claim petition. Though, respondent No.2, who happened to be driver of the vehicle in question, filed a separate reply, but took the stand as taken by respondent No. 1.

4. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company refuted the claim of the claimants on the ground that at the time of accident, vehicle in question was not having requisite documents and driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Insurance Company also denied the factum with regard to accident of the vehicle and claimed that the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, it was not under any obligation to pay compensation to the claimants. Insurance Company also averred that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle in question as a gratuitous passenger.

5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues:

"1. Whether Smt. Lata Devi died in a motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount and at what rate of interest the petitioners are entitled for compensation? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.3 is liable to make the payment of compensation amount as indemnifier? OPP

4. Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR

5. Whether respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence.? OPR-3

6. Relief."

6. Vide impugned Award, learned Tribunal below, dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants being not maintainable, against which they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis- -vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below, while passing impugned award, this Court finds no force in the argument of Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, appearing for the claimants that learned Tribunal below has erred in not awarding any compensation in favour of the claimants, because, material on record nowhere suggests that the claimants, who otherwise are closely related to respondent No.1 and deceased, succeeded in proving the negligence, if any, of respondent No.2, who otherwise happened to be brother of the deceased. Record clearly reveals that the claimants