The delay in renewing the driver's license was not on the part of the driver, and the authority concerned was responsible for the delay. The compensation to be awarded in favor of the claimants should be in accordance with the conclusions of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700, which brought about radical and fundamental changes in the award of compensation. The interest rate should be 9% per annum.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since common question of fact and law arises for consideration in all these appeals, they were taken up together for hearing and all the issues, except the quantum of compensation, are being decided through common reasoning.

2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the claim petitions are that the claimants herein happened to be the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased(s), who were travelling in Mahindra Max Pickup No. HP-09-2290, which was going to Village Sangalwara, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi and fell 100-150 metres down resulting in death of all of its occupants. All the claim petitions were filed with the allegations that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver.

3. The owner of the vehicle resisted and contested the petition by filing reply wherein the factum of accident and death of the occupants was not denied, but it was not denied for want of knowledge that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of his driver.

4. The Insurance Company also resisted and contested the petitions by filing reply wherein it sought to avoid its liability on the ground that the deceased were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle and that the driver of the said vehicle was not possessed of valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the offending vehicle was also being plied in contravention to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

5. For the convenience and proper appreciation and also to avoid repetition of the issues framed by the learned Tribunal, the deceased is being referred to as ''a'', whereas, the driver is being referred to as ''b''.

6. In FAOs(MVA) No. 306,317, 318, 319, 321 and 322 of 2014, the learned Tribunal on 05. 03. 2010 framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether ''a'' died due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-09A-2290 by the driver(''b'') as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? O. P. Parties.

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

4. Whether the petitioners have a cause of action? OPP.

5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the of the insurance policy as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-2.

6. Whether ''a'' was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-2.

7. Whether ''b'' was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-2.

8. Relief. "

In FAOs (MVA) No. 320 and 323 of 2014, the learned Tribunal on 07. 04. 2011 framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. HP-09-2290 on 06. 06. 2009 resulting in death of ''a''? OPP.

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

3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid registration certificate? OPR.

4. Whether the driver of the vehicle No. HP-09-2290 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR.

5. Whether the ill fated vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose? OPR.

6. Whether ''a'' was travelling in ill fated vehicle as gratuitous passenger? OPR.

7. Relief. "

Whereas, in FAO (MVA) No. 328 of 2014, the learned Tribunal on 02. 09. 2011 framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the death of ''b'' was caused due to use of vehicle No. HP-09-2290? OPP.

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

3. Whether the driver of vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident? OPR.

4. Whether the dr