Comprehensive motor package policy covers passenger/occupant death liability even for driver's family members absent collusion proof; new pleas barred in appeal if not raised before tribunal.

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant, who was respondent No. 4 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 03.11.2012, passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby Claim Petition No. 12/2010, filed by the petitioners-claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,28,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the entire amount and respondent No. 4/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.2006, Neelma Devi, was travelling in Indica Car bearing registration No. HP-23A-0074, which was being driven by respondent No. 3, Jeet Ram in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the car rolled down from the road and as a result of which, Neelma Devi sustained injuries on her forehead. The claimants, who were also travelling in the aforesaid vehicle, also sustained injuries in the accident. After the accident, the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, where Neelma Devi was declared dead. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased was 54 years of age and was running a stitching centre at Taleli Bazar, Tehsil Sundernagar and earning Rs. 5,500/- per month. Besides stitching centre, she was also earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from selling milk. As such, her monthly income was Rs. 7,500/- per month. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No. 3, driver of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition by filing reply and admitted the accident, however, he denied that the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. It has been submitted by the replying respondent that he was an experienced driver and doing his job as a driver for many years and was having a valid and effective driving licence.

4. Respondent No. 4/Insurance Company in its reply submitted that the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid driving licence and there is a specific violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has been denied that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. It has also been submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

5. On 03.05.2011, the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication:

“1. Whether Smt. Neelma Devi died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 23.10.2006 at about 11:30 A.M. at Badon within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sarkaghat, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP23-A-0074 being driven by respondent No. 3, as alleged. OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP

3. Whether driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-4

4. Whether the petition has been filed by the pe