IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the insurer to establish exceptions under the insurance policy, and the court has the jurisdiction to modify compensation awards based on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

These two appeals have been heard and are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of facts and law are involved.

2. The appeals have been filed by the insurer. In FAO No. 145 of 2013, respondents No. 1 and 2 were the claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Claimants”) and respondent No.3 was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”). Similar is the position in FAO No. 148 of 2013.

3. The vehicle Utility Jeep No. HP-20-6469 was owned by the owner. On 25.01.2010 the vehicle met with an accident while being driven by the owner. Three persons namely Dev Singh, Sonu and Sunil Kumar were occupying the vehicle. Dev Singh and Sonu died as a result of injuries suffered by them in the accident. Sunil Kumar also suffered injuries. The parents of Dev Singh i.e. claimants in FAO No. 145 of 2013 filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “Act”) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. (for short, “Tribunal”) which was registered as MAC Petition No. 08/2010. The owner and insurer were impleaded as respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively.

4. The parents of Sonu also filed a separate claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act before the learned Tribunal, which was registered as MAC Petition No. 09/2010.

5. In both the claim petitions, it was averred that Dev Singh, Sonu and Sunil Kumar were employees of the owner and were working with him as labourers. On 25.01.2010 all three i.e. Dev Singh, Sonu and Sunil Kumar had been taken by the owner to cremation ground at Una in his vehicle No. HP-20-6469 to deliver timber and dry grass. On their way back at about 3.30 P.M. when the vehicle reached Bedian Bridge, Una, the owner could not control the vehicle on steep ascend and the vehicle rolled down back, resulting in deaths of Dev Singh, Sonu and injuries to Sunil Kumar.

6. The status of deceased Dev Singh and Sonu was mentioned to be the labourers and employees of the owner. Their income was stated to be Rs.3200/- per month each.

7. The owner admitted the occurrence of accident. The factum of deceased being his labourers employed by the owner was also not denied. As regards the income of the deceased, evasive reply was submitted.

8. The insurer contested the petition by taking objections that the petition was not maintainable, the owner was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive, the vehicle was being used without valid route permit, registration certificate and fitness certificate and in such manner, the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was alleged. Another omnibus objection was taken in the following terms: “That respondent No.2 takes the entire pleas that are available to insurance company as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act”. On merits, the reply submitted by the insurer to the averments made in the petitions was vague and evasive.

9. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether deceased Dev Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep bearing registration No. HP-20-6469 by respondent No.1 on 25.01.2010 at about 3.20 near Una Bridge, District Una on the public road? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR2

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-2.

5. Relief.

Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative. Other issues were negated and the petitions were allowed. The compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- was awarded in each of the claim petitions.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

11. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for t