Eyewitness and party testimony proving licensed driver's negligence upheld over unproved police FIR/report; unproven income leads to minimum wage-based notional assessment for compensation.

JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

All these appeals were heard and are being decided together, as common questions of facts and law are involved.

2. On 23.3.2021, vehicle No. HP10B-7034 (Alto Car) met with an accident at place known as Shalawat Kainchi (Rohru-Sungri Road), as it went off the road and fell into a gorge. Two occupants of the car namely Aman Chauhan and Jasvinder died as a result of injuries suffered in the accident. Another person named Prince Chauhan suffered injuries. In this backdrop, three separate claim petitions came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal).

3. Claim petition bearing No. MAC 11-R/2 of 2021 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Aman Chauhan; MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Jasvinder and MAC 13-R/2 of 2021 was filed by Sh. Prince Chauhan for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him.

4. Learned Tribunal vide separate awards passed on the same date i.e. 22.12.2022 has allowed all the claim petitions, hence the instant appeals by the insurer of the vehicle.

5. Brief facts necessary for adjudication are as under:-

5.1 All the claim petitions were filed with the averments that on the fateful day, Aman Chauhan, Jasvinder, Prince Chauhan and Anil Kumar were travelling in Alto Car No. HP10B-7034. Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the driver) was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The vehicle was owned by Banti Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the owner) and was insured with SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) at the time of accident.

5.2 In all the petitions, the cause of accident was attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver.

5.3 The owner and driver filed their joint reply. The averments made in the claim petitions were denied in generality, save and except that a specific denial was made to the allegation of rash and negligent driving against the driver. It was submitted that the accident had taken place due to mechanical fault.

5.4 The insurer disputed its liability by alleging breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. A specific stand was taken that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Aman Chauhan, who did not have a valid driving license. As per insurer, the name of Anil Kumar as driver of the vehicle was planted for the purpose of fastening the liability on the insurer. Reliance was placed on the contents of FIR registered at Police Station, Rohru with respect to the accident, wherein the factum of vehicle being driven by Aman Chauhan was recorded.

6. Learned Tribunal did not believe the defence raised by the respondents. It concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Accordingly, the following awards were passed: -

A) MAC No. 11-R/2 of 2021 titled as Reema Devi & others vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd & others.

B) MAC No. 12-R/2 of 2021 titled as Vidya Devi vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd & others.

C) MAC 13-R/2 of 2021 titled as