JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Chamba Division Chamba, 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 21.10.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby Claim Petition No. 57/2013, filed by the petitioners, under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed with costs and they were held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,08,200/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization and respondent No. 1, being insurer, was directed to indemnify the award.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2013, Bhupinder (since deceased) was travelling in vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-0404 (Tata Sumo), being driven by deceased Raj Kumar. When the aforesaid vehicle reached at place Kowaji Mor near Shour, its driver could not keep control over the same and it went off the road and rolled down into a gorge, as a result of which, Bhupinder died on the spot. According to the petitioners, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. It has been further averred that at the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years old and used to work as agriculturist and labourer and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, they filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company in its reply took preliminary objections qua maintainability, non- joinder of necessary parties, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, offending vehicle was not being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the vehicle was being plied without valid registration and fitness certificate and also without any valid route permit. On merits, averments made in the claim petition have been denied and it has been stated that the amount claimed is excessive and without any basis.

4. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim petition by filing reply and took preliminary objection qua maintainability. On merits, though he admitted the ownership of vehicle No. HP-01K-0404, however he denied that the vehicle ever met with any accident. It has been stated that as per FIR and police investigation, it was vehicle No. HP-01C-0404, which met with an accident. He also denied that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle at the relevant time. It has further been stated that vehicle No. HP-01K-0404 was duly insured with respondent No. 1 at the time of accident and in case the petitioners are held entitled to any compensation, respondent No. 1/Insurance Company would be liable to pay the same.

5. On 28.12.2013, the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication:

“1. Whether on 11.11.2013 at Kuwaji Mor Shour, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba deceased Bhupinder died on account of accident of vehicle No. HP 01K-0404 (Tata Sumo) due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by driver Raj Kumar, who also died in the accident, as alleged? OPP

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

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 1 & 2

4. Whether the driver of the ill fated vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident, as alleged? OPR-1

5. Whether the deceased Bhupinder was travelling in the alleged vehicle as a gratuitous passenger or unauthorized occupant, as alleged? OPR-1

6. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and Motor Vehicles Act/Rules, as alleged? OPR-1

7. Whether the offending vehicle was not having