The court upheld the principle of res ipsa loquitur in determining the cause of the accident and relied on the evidence to establish breach of insurance policy and driver's license validity.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in MAC Petition No. 101 of 2009 dated 30.11.2012, vide which the claim petition filed before learned Tribunal by respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants stood allowed in the following terms:-

"As a sequel to my findings on the above issues, this petition is allowed and accordingly, the petitioners are granted total compensation of Rs.3, 49, 000/- along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization including the compensation, if any, awarded u/s 140 of the Act. The aforesaid amount is liable to be paid by respondent No. 2, being owner and respondent No. 3, being driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. As mentioned above, respondent No. 1, the insurer, cannot be issued direction to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation and then to recover it from respondents No. 2 and 3. Memo of costs be prepared. File, after its due completion, be consigned to record room."

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that as per the case of respondents No. 1 and 2/ claimants, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, deceased Sandeep son of the claimants was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-0879 on 30.08.2009 from Taklech to Nogli in District Shimla which vehicle was boarded by him after watching schools tournament. At around 06.30 P.M. when the vehicle reached at a place near Khanortu, on Taklech road, it met with an accident, as a result of which, Sandeep died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. Thereafter, FIR No. 168/2009 was registered on 30.08.2009 at Police Station Rampur Bushahr. As per the claimants, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the person driving the vehicle i.e. Janardan. The vehicle was owned by Shobha Ram (present appellant) which was insured with IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Company. At the time of death of the deceased, his age was 20 years and he was undergoing his studies in Government College, Rampur, as a first year student. The deceased was also working as Assistant Electrician with one contractor after his study hours and thus, was earning Rs.3000/- per month and was having a bright future. On these basis, the claimants filed claim petition praying for compensation to the tune of Rupees Fifteen Lac on account of untimely death of Sandeep in the accident.

3. Insurance Company contested the claim petition inter alia on the ground of its maintainability including the factum of the driver not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Even the factum of deceased dying as a result of the accident was denied alongwith other contentions raised by the claimants.

4. Owner of the vehicle i.e. present appellant and driver thereof, filed a joint reply in which the stand on merit taken by them was that the deceased had hired the vehicle to carry his luggage and goods from Taklech to Nogli alongwith other occupants, on contributory basis. The occurrence of the accident on account of rash and negligent driving was disputed. As per them, the accident took place due to sudden mechanical defect, which had developed in the vehicle.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether late Sh. Sandeep had died on account of the injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-06A-0879, being driven by respondent No. 3, as alleged? 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 offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-1

4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed of a valid and effected driving licence at the relevant time? OPR-1

5. Whether the driver and owner of the offending vehicle