JUDGMENT :

Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (herein after referred to as “ the Act”), lays challenge to award dated 16.3.2019, passed by the learned MACT-III, Shimla camp at Rohru, HP, in MAC case No. 11-R/2 of 2017, titled Balma Devi and others v. Sharda Devi and Ors, whereby the learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, having been filed by the respondents-claimants No. 1 and 2 (in short “the claimants”), saddled the Appellant-Insurance Company with liability to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,30,000 a/w interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- alongwith statutory interest from the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 being owner and driver on account of death of Sh. Hem Raj, being his legal heirs. Claimants claimed that on 13.2.2017, deceased Hemraj was going to Tikkar in a vehicle bearing registration No.HP-10A-9256 alongwith other occupants and at that relevant time vehicle was being driven by respondent No.5, Sanjeev Kumar. Unfortunately, aforesaid vehicle met with an accident, as a consequence of which, all the occupants got injured, but person named Hem raj died on the spot. Factum with regard to accident came to be reported to the police vide FIR No. 0012 of 2017 dated 13.2.2017, whereafter case under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC was registered against respondent No.5. Claimants claimed that at the time of the accident, deceased Hem Raj was 42 years old and he being mason and plumber used to earn sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted by the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No. 4 and 5, who, in their reply, though nowhere disputed the factum with regard to the accident, but claimed that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, which was coming from Tikkar side. Appellant-Insurance company claimed that since vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and driver of the vehicle was not holding effective and valid licence, it cannot be fastened with the liability to indemnify the insured.

4. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned MACT below farmed following issues:

“1. Whether deceased Hem Raj died on 13.02.2017 at place Kasheni Kainchi, Tehsil Rohru due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, while he was driving vehicle bearing registration No.HP-10A-92567? OPP

2. In case, issue No. 1 is proved in affirmation, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR

4. Whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver who was coming from opposite side? OPR-1 and 2

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

6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and condition of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3

7. Whether the deceased was travelling in the ill-fated vehicle as gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR-3

8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as alleged? OPR-3

9. Relief”

5. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 16.3.2019, learned Tribunal below on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the Appellant-Insurance Company and respondents No. 4 and 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,30,000/- to the claimants alongw