The court upheld the claimants' right to compensation for wrongful death, affirming the tribunal's findings on negligence and dependency calculations, while denying the insurer's claims of policy violations.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

1. By way of instant appeal, award dated 7.11.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P. (for short the Tribunal) in case RBT MACP No. 39-K/II/13/08, has been challenged by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), for compensation on account of death of Sh. Wilson in an accident dated 26.11.2006 involving motor vehicle (Car) bearing registration No. UP-15Y-7910. Respondents No. 5 and 6 herein (hereinafter referred to as owner and driver respectively) and the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) were impleaded as respondents.

3. The claimants alleged that on 26.11.2006, the Sh. Wilson along with his other relatives was travelling in vehicle No. UP-15Y-7910, driven by the driver. At about 10.15 AM, when the vehicle reached near IPH Office old Kangra, the driver could not control the vehicle and as a result of which, it went out of the road, causing injuries to other occupants and death of Sh. Wilson. In this manner, the accident was attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver.

4. The matter was allegedly reported to the police at Police Station, Kangra and an FIR No. 468 of 2006 was registered against the driver on 26.11.2006 under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC.

5. As per claimants, the deceased was 28 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 9000/- per month from his employment as Marketing Executive with A.R. Marketing, 23/2, Mission Compound, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

6. All the claimants had alleged their total dependency for livelihood on deceased Sh. Wilson.

7. Claimant No.4 was born to claimant No.1 after the death of Sh. Wilson on 16.1.2007.

8. The owner and driver did not choose to contest the claim petition and were proceeded against ex-parte.

9. The insurer filed its reply before the learned Tribunal and raised the objection that the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It was also alleged that the owner and driver had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by using motor vehicle for a purpose other than for which it was registered. The negligence on part of driver was denied. All other averments made in the claim petition were also denied in generality.

10. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the death of deceased Wilson was caused on 26.11.2006 at Purana Kangra, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP- 15Y-7910 by the respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP.

ii) If the issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.

iii) Whether the respondent No.2, was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3.

iv) Whether the respondents No. 1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3.

v) Relief.

11. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas issues No. 3 and 4 were answered in negative. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed by holding claimants entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 24,22,000/- from the respondents and by directing the insurer to satisfy the award. In addition, the interest- pendent-lite and future on the awarded amount was allowed at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the costs were also awarded in favour of the claimants.

12. During the pendency of this appeal, the insurer filed two separate applications being CMP No. 9270 of 2017 under Order 41 Rules 2 and 3 (3) of the CPC and CMP No. 9266 of 2017 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. By way of CMP No. 9270 of 2017, a prayer was made to raise additional ground by amending the memorandum of appeal to urge that since the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license, the terms of policy were violated and for such reason, the