The insurer can be held liable for compensation despite policy breaches if negligence by the driver caused the accident, and overloading alone does not exempt liability unless it contributed to the incident.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/ Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (for short “the Act”), against the award dated 15.09.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P., in MAC Petition No.19/2013 (393/2013), with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of rupees ten lacs on account of death of Smt. Sashena Devi, who was wife of petitioner/respondent No.1 and mother of petitioners/respondents No.2 & 3. As per the petitioners, Sashena Devi (deceased) died in a motor accident on 26.01.2013, involving vehicle (Mahindra Maxi Cab) bearing registration No.HP-02C-0145, near Lunni Char, Tehsil Bharmour District Chamba, H.P. It was further averred that on 26.01.2013 the deceased hired the vehicle in question and she was traveling from Village Siunr to Holi, which was being driven by one Devender Kumar (respondent No.4 herein) in a rash and negligent manner and when the said vehicle reached near village Machhater, the driver could not control it and the vehicle rolled down and fell in Ravi river, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.

3. As per the petitioners, the deceased was 48 years old and she was a house wife. She was working as an agriculturist and also running a dairy and occasionally working in MNREGA. She used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. The offending vehicle was owned by one Sarola Ram (respondent No.5 herein) and it was insured with Oriental Insurance Company (appellant herein). It was also averred that the deceased used to look-after and maintain the family and she was the only earning member. Lastly, the petitioners sought compensation to the tune of rupees ten lacs.

4. The Insurance Company/appellant filed reply to the claim petition, wherein preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability, that the vehicle was over-loaded with 14 passengers against the seating capacity of 10, it was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT /Rules and it was not having valid route permit/fitness certificate. On merits, it was admitted that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle, which was overloaded and the insured made breaches to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

5. The driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.4 herein) in his reply to the claim petition raised preliminary objection of maintainability and on merits, he denied the averments made in the claim petition for want of knowledge. He averred that he was not the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-02C-0145.

6. The owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.6 herein) in his reply to the claim petition, raised preliminary objection of maintainability of the petition and averred that the offending vehicle was comprehensively insured with the Insurance company, hence, the insurer was liable to indemnify the petitioners. On merits, the occurrence of accident as well as the death of the deceased was admitted and it was also admitted that the vehicle was owned by him. As per him,