Light motor vehicle licence holder competent to drive transport vehicle with gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg without additional endorsement; insurer liable for compensation absent policy breach.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been maintained by appellants, who were respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu, District Kullu, 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 04.03.2014, passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby Claim Petition No. 30/2011 (41 of 12) (467/2013), filed by the petitioners-claimants, who are respondents No. 1 to 4 herein (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. 8,90,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final realization of the amount and respondents No. 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, respectively (appellants-Anup Ram and Kuldeep Chand) were held liable to pay the amount of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- claimants, i.e., Smt. Kamla Devi widow of late Shri Yashpal (deceased), minors Krish and Diya (being minor son and daughter of the deceased) and Smt. Budhi Devi mother of the deceased, maintained a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. As per the petitioners, on 08.08.2011 the deceased was transporting tomatoes in jeep, bearing registration No. HP-34A-7885, and he was sitting alongside its driver-Kuldeep Chand. However, on the way, a truck, bearing registration No HP-11-4160, came from the opposite side near Siund and in order to give pass to the said truck, the jeep of the deceased had to stop. In the interregnum, jeep, bearing registration No.HP-66-1282, came from Manikaran side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Kuldeep Chand and owned by Anup Ram dashed against the jeep of the deceased and it also dashed against the aforesaid truck and thereafter it struck against another jeep, bearing registration No. HP-34B-2619. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Kuldeep Chand. In the accident the deceased sustained serious injuries and he was shifted to Kullu Hospital, where he was declared dead. Jeep No. HP-66-1282 was insured with respondent-ICICI Insurance Company Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. On the basis of these submissions, the petitioners/claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e., owner and driver of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition by filing reply. The replying respondents raised preliminary objection of maintainability of the petition. As per the replying respondents, the jeep was insured with respondent No. 3, i.e. Insurance Company, thus respondent No. 3 was liable to pay the compensation, if any. On merits, it was denied that respondent No. 2 was driving jeep No. HP-66-1282 in a rash and negligent manner due to the accident occurred. It was denied that the deceased was travelling in the jeep and he expired due to the accident in question. Respondent No. 2- Kuldeep Chand averred that he was having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, he was not responsible for the compensation and if it was found that vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-66-1282, was liable for the accident, then Insurance Company be saddled to pay the compensation. The income of the deceased was also denied by the replying respondents and lastly dismissal of the petition was prayed.

4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company filed