JUDGMENT :

Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”), lays challenge to award dated 11.10.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-(II), Solan, District Solan, camp at Nalagarh, (in short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No.5-S/2 of 2016, titled Dharmesh and Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh and Anr., whereby the Tribunal below while allowing claim petition having been filed by the respondents-claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) under Section 166 of the Act, saddled the appellant-Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,85,000/- to the claimants alongwith interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the award amount on account of death of late Sh. Ujjagar Singh.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record, are that claimants No. 1 to 3, who happen to be children and widow of deceased Ujjagar Singh, preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the MACT below, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of death of Sh. Ujjagar Singh. Claimants averred in the petition that in the morning of 16.3.2015 at 10.45AM, when the deceased Ujjagar Singh was walking on the road side at village Manpura New Shiva Biogenetic Factory, one truck bearing registration No. HP-12F-8513, being driven rashly and negligently by the owner cum driver, Sh. Bhupinder Singh hit him, as a consequence of which, he sustained serious injuries. Though, at the first instance, above named person was taken to the Government Hospital Nalagarh and thereafter, was referred to PGI Chandigarh, but unfortunately, while he was on his way to PGI, he succumbed to the injuries and his dead body was again brought back to CHC Nalagarh, for post-mortem. Vide FIR Ext.PW2/A, case was registered against respondent No.4. Claimants claimed that deceased was doing agricultural work and besides that he was also selling milk and as such, was earning sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. Claimants claimed that since the offending truck was owned by respondent No.4 and was ensured with Appellant-Insurance Company, they are liable to pay compensation to them being LRs of deceased Ujjagar Singh.

3. Aforesaid claim petition preferred by the Claimants came to be resisted by respondent No.4, who while taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, denied the factum of accident of the offending truck on the relevant date, time and place. respondent No.4 also denied that he was driving the offending truck rashly and negligently. Appellant-Insurance Company beside raising preliminary objections of maintainability and collusiveness, claimed that offending truck was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, is not liable to indemnify the owner. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied accident of offending truck with deceased on the relevant date, time and place and claimed that petition being false and frivolous deserves to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, Tribunal below framed following issues:-

“1. Whether on the morning of 16.03.2015 around 10:45 a.m. at place village Manpura, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, on the public highway, respondent No.1 was driving vehicle/truck bearing registration No. HP-12F-8513 rashly and negligently which resulted in causing death of predecessor of the petitioners Ujjagar Singh a pedestrian when he was knocked down by the aforesaid truck, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners being legal heirs/dependants are entitled for compensation, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether petition of the petitioner is not maintainable? OPR.

4. Whether the petition of the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. OPR-1

5. Whether