Point of Law: Sections 166 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, empowers to Tribunals and Courts with jurisdiction to award just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The insurer, by way of instant appeal, has assailed the award dated 07.09.2015, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una in M.A.C.P. No. 37/2014.

2. The claimants (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) for grant of compensation on account of death of Sh. Mohinder Chand in a motor vehicle accident involving Truck No. HP-22-7495 and Scooter No. HP-20A-4639 that had taken place on 31.01.2014 at Village Bhadsali, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P.

3. As per claimants, Sh. Mohinder Chand was riding Scooter No. HP-20A- 4639 on his way from office to residence. He was accompanied by Mr. Shyam Mohan, who was on the pillion of the scooter. When the scooter reached near Village Bhadsali, it collided with Truck No. HP-22-7495 from the back side of the Truck. It was alleged that the offending truck was parked by its driver negligently and had left the vehicle in a dangerous position on the road without using parking or indicator lights. Due to dense fog on the road, the parked truck could not be sighted and as a result thereof the accident occurred in the abovesaid manner. The deceased was stated to be working as Assistant Lineman in H.P. State Electricity Board and his last drawn pay was Rs. 22,630/-

4. The driver and owner of truck (respondents No. 5 and 6 herein) filed their joint reply in which they submitted that the deceased himself was negligent in riding the scooter and as a result thereof the accident had taken place. Reliance was placed on FIR No. 19 of 2014, dated 31.01.2014, registered at Police Station Haroli, according to which, deceased himself was negligent. It was further averred that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle at very slow speed as the truck was loaded with cement bags. It was on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself that this scooter collided with the truck. The owner/ driver also alleged that at the time of accident the deceased and the person on his pillion were drunk.

5. The insurer (appellant herein) contested the petition separately on the ground firstly that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation for the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and secondly, that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured as there was serious breach of the terms of insurance policy. According to the insurer, the driver of the truck did not have valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. In addition, various other breaches of the terms of insurance polices were alleged.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether on 31.01.2014 at about 6:45 PM at Bhadsali, respondent NO. 1 was driving truck No. HP-22-7495 rashly and negligently and caused death of Mohinder Chand?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to

what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the driver of the truck No. HP22-7495 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the truck at the time of accident? OPR.

4. Whether the truck in question was being driven without valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and route permit? OPR

5. Whether there is collusion between petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2 ?OPR

6. Whether the truck in question was being driven and used in violation of terms of insurance policy and Motor Vehicle Act? OPR

7. Whether the petition is not maintainable as the deceased was himself tort-fesor? OPR.

8. Relief.

Issue No.1 was decided in affirmative. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 22,86,528/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal. Issues No. 3 to 7 were decided in negative.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone throu