Point of Law: Section 166 and 168 of Act empowers Tribunal(s) and Court(s) with jurisdiction to award just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

1. By way of instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”), the appellant/insurer has assailed Award dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (CBI), Shimla, (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 85-T/2 of 2013/12, whereby a sum of Rs.15,21,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till deposit has been awarded in favour of respondents No.1 to 3/claimants.

2. The claimants had approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Act on account of death of Shri Sandeep Kumar. Claimants No.1 to 3 were mother, wife and minor son respectively of late Shri Sandeep Kumar.

3. Shri Sandeep Kumar had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 13.07.2011 and had died as a result thereof. The deceased was 19 years old at the time of his death. The vehicle involved in the accident was a truck bearing No. HP-11-4707 and was owned by respondent No.4 herein/owner and was being driven by respondent No.5 herein/driver at the time of accident. The accident was attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Deceased Shri Sandeep Kumar was said to be travelling in the truck as the owner of the goods. The vehicle was insured by the appellant/insurer at the relevant time.

4. The owner in his reply before the learned Tribunal admitted that the deceased Shri Sandeep Kumar was travelling in the truck as the owner of goods. It was submitted that the truck was carrying sand for deceased Sandeep Kumar and others. Owner also disclosed that the truck was insured by the insurer at the time of accident. It was further submitted that the driver of the truck was driving the truck consciously and the accident had taken place due to slippery road. Owner had seen the driving licence of the driver at the time of his engagement. As per the owner, the driver was having valid and effective driving licence.

5. Insurer did not file any reply. It is revealed from the record that initially the claimants had impleaded National Insurance Company ltd. as insurer, but during the proceedings of the case, name of National Insurance Company was deleted from the array of respondents and appellant/insurer was added as respondent No.1. Though, the National Insurance Company as the then respondent No.1 had filed its reply, but no separate reply came to be filed on behalf of the appellant/insurer.

6. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:--

1. Whether the deceased Sandeep Kumar had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3 on 13.07.2011, as prayed for?...OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for adequate compensation and from whom?...OPP.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged?...OPP.

4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition, as alleged?....OPR.

5. Whether the driver was driving the vehicle without any driving licence and in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?....OPR-1

7. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative, whereas remaining issues were answered in the negative. The petition was allowed and claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 15,21,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of petition till the deposit of the awarded amount. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appellant/insurer. All the claimants were held entitled to compensation amount equally except for amount on account of loss of consortium, which was ordered to be paid to wife of deceased only.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the entire record.

9. Shri Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer in the first instance has contended that the insurer was neither afforded any opportunity to file re