The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the need for the Insurance Company to prove the violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the status of the deceased as a gratuitous passenger.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. Appellant­Coastal Projects Private Limited has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 12.3.2013, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 86 of 2006, titled as Smt. Bhakti Devi and Others vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Another.

2. By way of award dated 12.3.2013, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 4, by awarding a sum of Rs.11,17,320/­ along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been put on the appellant­ Company, being owner of vehicle No. HP­66­0774 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeals, before this Court, may be summed up as under:

4.1. Petitioners, being widow, son and parents of deceased Chaman Lal, have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being Insurer and owner of the offending vehicle.

4.2. The stand taken by the petitioners, in the claim petition, is that on 6.3.2006, Shri Chaman Lal was returning from the site to T.R.T. Prini, in the offending vehicle, which was being driven, by its driver, Radhe Shyam, in a rash and negligent manner. When, the offending vehicle reached near Sterling Hotel Prini, the driver could not negotiate the curve and lost control over the same. Consequently, the vehicle rolled down in the 500 feet deep gorge.

4.3. In the said accident, Chaman Lal sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. He was taken to Mission Hospital, Manali, where, he was declared dead by the doctors. His postmortem examination was conducted at Zonal Hospital, Kullu.

4.4. Apart from this, it is the further case of the petitioners that the age of Chaman Lal was 28 years, at the time of his death and was serving as Technical Supervisor with respondent No. 2. He was earning Rs.13,000/­ per month. This amount has been bifurcated, by stating that he was receiving Rs.8,000/­ per month, as salary, whereas, he was also earning Rs.5,000/­ per month from agriculture pursuits.

4.5. The matter regarding the accident was reported to the Police with Police Station, Manali.

4.6. Apart from this, it has also been pleaded that Chaman Lal was graduate, Diploma Holder in Draughtsman and Diploma in B.C.M.T. (Bharat Computers and Management Technology). All these facts have been pleaded to show that the petitioners were having the bright past and bleak future.

5. On the basis of assertions, so made, a prayer has been made to allow the petition and to award the compensation to the petitioners, on account of death of Shri Chaman Lal, in the said accident, involving the offending vehicle.

6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents.

7. Respondent No. 1­Insurance Company has filed its reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence; the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy; the insured has intentionally committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Police; and the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, at the time of accident.

7.1. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, it has been submitted that the decease