JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant petition filed under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) lays challenge to Award dated 29.9.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Una, District Una, in M.A.C. Petition No. 52/2013/2012, whereby learned tribunal below, while allowing claim petition under S.166 of the Act, having been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3/claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’), saddled the appellant-Insurance company with the liability to pay a compensation of Rs.8,24,940/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9%, to the claimants.

2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that the claimants, by way of petition under S.166 of the Act, filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Una, District Una, claimed a sum of Rs. 10.00 Lakh as compensation on account of death of Smt. Saroj Kumari, who happened to be the mother of claimants Nos. 1 and 2 and wife of claimant No.3. According to the claimants, on 28.1.2011, respondent No.3 Lahori Ram had gone to Nanda Hospital alongwith his deceased wife, Saroj Kumari on motor cycle bearing registration No. HP19A-5708 but, while they were returning back to their home, a truck bearing registration No.HP64-6796, hit the motor cycle, as a consequence of which respondent No.3 and the deceased Saroj Kumari fell down on road and rear wheel of the truck crushed the head of the deceased, who died on the spot. Claimants Nos. 1 to 3 being dependent upon the deceased, filed claim petition before learned tribunal below, claiming compensation on account of mental agony and loss of love and affection. Besides above, claimants also claimed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- spent by them on account of transportation of body of deceased from the hospital to Village Nakroh.

3. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 being owner and driver of the vehicle filed a joint reply to the claim petition, claiming that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation because they were not dependent upon the deceased. Respondents though admitted that at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven by its driver, respondent No. 5, Jaswinder Singh, but denied that the accident took place on the relevant date, time and place.

4. Appellant-Insurance company, refuted the claim on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP64-6796 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Besides above, appellant- Insurance company also took a stand that since at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy and the Act, it cannot be saddled with the liability to indemnify the insured.

5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned tribunal below framed following issues on 13.3.2014:-

“1. Whether on 28.01.2011 at around 2.00PM .. chowk at Jhalera, the respondent No.2 was driving vehicle No. HP-64-6796 in a rash and negligent manner and by his rash and negligent driving, hit Smt. Saroj Kumari, who later on succumbed to injuries, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

5. Whether the driver of truck No. HP-64-6796 was not holding valid and effective driving license? OPR-3

6. Whether the truck in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3

7. Whether the present petition is result of collusion between petitioners and respondents No. 1 & 2? OPR-3

8. Relief:”

6. Subsequently, vide impugned Award dated 29.9.2016, learned tribunal below, on the basis of evidence led on record by respective parties, allowed the claim petition and sad