Occupant eyewitnesses' unshattered testimony on truck driver's negligence prevails over flawed police untraced report; insurer's invalid licence proof inadequate without complete records; compensation modified per precedents for deaths/injuries, rejecting unproven disability claims.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. All these appeals have been heard and are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of facts and law have arisen.

2. An accident involving Maruti Car No.HP-01-0665 and Truck No.HP 51A-6099 had taken place on 26.03.2009 at about 9:00 AM at place named Nichli Siunan in District Kangra. It was a collision between both the vehicles. Maruti Car No.HP-01-0665 was being driven by person named James with his two minor sons, namely, Master Sahil and Master Aman as occupants. In addition, two more persons named Virender and Anil were also travelling in car at the time of accident.

3. The truck was owned by Chaman Lal Sharma (for short the “owner/insured”) and driven by Dev Raj (for short the “driver”) at the time of accident.

4. As the result of injuries, suffered in the accident, James and Master Aman died. Injuries were suffered by remaining occupants also.

5. Following four separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”).

(i) MAC Petition No.54-D/II/2009 was filed by Renu, wife of James, for compensation on account of death of James.
(ii) Another petition, being MAC Petition No.52- D/II/2009, was filed by Renu for compensation on account of death of Master Aman.
(iii) MAC Petition No.53-D/II/2009 was filed by Anil Kumar for compensation on account of injuries and disablement suffered by him.
(iv) MAC Petition No.51-D/II/2009 was filed by Master Sahil for compensation on account of injuries and disablement suffered by him.

6. In all the above claim petitions, the owner/insured, driver and insurer of truck were impleaded as respondents No.1 to 3, respectively. The cause of action was attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck. It was alleged that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and as result thereof had hit the car with such force that the car was dragged back to a distance of approximately 20-25 meters.

7. The respondents in the claim petitions had not only denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving levelled against the driver, as the counter they had made a specific allegation that the driver of car i.e. James was driving the car in rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and as a result thereof the accident had taken place.

8. The FIR of the incident was recorded on the same day at the instance of Virender Kumar, one of the occupants of the car. In the said FIR also, the allegation of rash and negligent driving was levelled against the driver of the truck. However, after investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case filed an untraced report on the hypothesis that the driver of truck was not found negligent and the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of driver of the car named James. The untraced report had allegedly been accepted by the concerned Court also.

9. Learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, held the cause of accident to be the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck. Accordingly, the claimants in all the petitions were held entitled to compensation and the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. The