JUDGMENT :

Since both the above captioned appeals are directed against the awards passed in the petitions pertaining to same accident, they were being taken up together for hearing with the consent of learned counsel representing the parties and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

2. Instant appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), lay challenge to Awards dated 31.12.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla-(III) in case RBT Nos.24-S/2 of 2017 and 25-S/2 of 2017, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petitions, having been filed by the respondent No.1- claimant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimant’), held the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.14,98,000/- & Rs.6,30,028/- respectively with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petitions till their realization, to the claimant, on account of death of her son Sanjay Kumar and husband Shri Laiq Ram, who unfortunately died in a road accident.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that two petitions under Section 166 of the Act came to be instituted on behalf of the claimant, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.35 lac, each,, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of her son Sanjay Kumar and husband Laiq Ram.

4. Claimant claimed in the claim petitions that on 3rd July, 2013, her son Sanjay Kumar alongwith his father Laiq Ram was coming from Kharapathar to his native village Tau in a vehicle bearing registration No.HP- 63-2943 (Bolero Pickup) being driven by its driver namely, Surjan Singh. As per claimant, deceased Sanjay Kumar and his father had gone to Kharapathar for purchase of kariyana items and had hired the ill fated vehicle from Kharapathar to Tau. When the vehicle reached at Versta Kainchi, the same went out of the road as a consequence of which driver namely, Surjan Singh as well as his son Sanjay and husband Laiq Ram sustained multiple injuries on their persons and died on the spot.

5. Claimant claimed that the age of her deceased son was 31 years and that of her deceased husband was 65 years at the time of accident and they were earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- & Rs.25,000/- per month respectively from their agricultural pursuits. Besides above, claimant also claimed that this accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-63-2943, namely, Surjan Singh and as such, she may be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.35 lacs each alongwith interest @ 12% per annum each from the date of accident till its realization.

6. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimant came to be resisted on behalf of respondent No.1 Mr.Ashish, owner of the ill-fated vehicle, on the ground of maintainability. He claimed that since the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company at the time of accident, as such, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant, rather, same has to be paid by the Insurance Company. On merits, respondent No.1 admitted the factum with regard to accident, but denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. He claimed that there was steep decline on the spot and all of a sudden, some mechanical defect occurred in the vehicle, as a consequence of which, vehicle fell in deep gorge.

7. Appellant Insurance Company filed separate replies to both the claim petitions raising preliminary objection qua maintainability. Appellant-Insurance Company averred in the reply that deceased were traveling in the illfated vehicle as gratuitous passengers and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Appellant Insurance Company claimed that the vehicle in question was being plied in infraction of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and the vehicle was be