The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the driver's identity and qualifications, along with the validation of insurance coverage, to establish the liability of the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 17th June, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in Claim Petition No. 28 of 2008, titled as Dhan Dev versus Bhawani Singh & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the appellants respondents No. 1 and 2 in the claim petition (hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?).

2. The claimant-injured and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

3. The appellants have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling them with liability and discharging the insurer.

4. The claimant-injured, namely Shri Dhan Dev, became victim of the motor vehicular accident which was caused by the driver of a private car, bearing registration No. HP-34 A-7167, on 8th December, 2007, at Bali Chowki, while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the claimant-injured, in which he sustained injuries.

5. One of the questions to be determined in this appeal is – whether the offending vehicle was being driven by Shri Mangharu or by Shri Bir Singh?

6. Respondents have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. Respondents No. 12 and 4 have filed separate replies to the claim petition stating therein that it was Shri Bir Singh (respondent No. 4 in the claim petition), who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the reply filed by respondent No. 4 herein:

?.......... It is however submitted that respondent No. 4 was driving vehicle no. HP-34A-7167 and respondent no. 1 & 2 were sitting on back seat of the vehicle on 8- 12-2007. It is further submitted that respondent no. 4 was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and no accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 4 neither the petitioner has sustained any injuries in motor vehicle accident.?

Thus, it is admission on the part of Shri Bir Singh that he was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time.

7. The Tribunal has held that FIR was lodged against Shri Mangharu and report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ?the CrPC?) was presented against him, thus, it can be presumed that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the impugned award herein:

?19. FIR was lodged against respondent No. 2. It is also in the evidence that a police challan was presented against him only. The FIR must have been lodged immediately i.e. when there was no chance of manipulation. It can be presumed that the investigation was properly done and on such proper investigation, it must have been found that it was respondent No. 2 who was driving the vehicle that is why police presented challan against him.?

8. Learned counsel for the appellants produced in this Court, in terms of the mandate of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ?the CPC?), the judgment, dated 21st June, 2010, made by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as ?the Magistrate?) in Police Challan No. 105-I/2008/1-II/2008, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh versus Manghru Ram, wherein it has been held that accused, namely Shri Manghru Ram, had taken the defence that he was not driving the offending vehicle, which was being driven by Shri Bir Singh. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the judgment herein:

?10. Defence of the accused was that of simplicitor denial. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on the said date vehicle was being