The main legal point established in the judgment is the restriction of an insurance company's liability to the permitted capacity of a vehicle and the significance of valid and effective driving licenses in determining insurance coverage.

Hasnain Massodi, J.-

1. Passenger vehicle bearing registration no. JK02G-2108, on 07.12.2003 while proceeding from Ramsoo to Village Shalgadi met a tragic accident at Ramban. Shri Javeed Ahmad Naik driver of the vehicle was allegedly driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident. He lost his life in the accident and a number of passengers travelling in the vehicle either died or suffered multiple injuries. The accident led to registration of case FIR No. 229 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337,338, 304A Ranbir Penal Code at Police Station, Banihal. In the report regarding occurrence transmitted by Incharge Police Post/Division, Ramsoo through Manjit Singh 224/SPO to SHO Police Station, Banihal, the number and particulars of the passengers who had lost their lives in the accident or were injured was not given. However, SHO Police Station, Banihal came to know that 28 passengers had lost their lives and 23 passengers were injured in the accident. The accident led to filing of 16 claim petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu and 12 petitions in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban by the dependents of the deceased and the injured passengers. The case set up was that the accident was attributable to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured was under an obligation to pay compensation to the dependents and the injured. The Insurance Company was arrayed as party respondent in each of the claim petition. The claimants set out necessary details in the claim petitions like age and annual income of the deceased, loss of income suffered by the dependents of the deceased passengers and the injured on account of accident, to enable the Tribunal to assess just compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The Insurance Company - present appellant, opposed the claim petitions on the ground that as the owner of the offending vehicle was guilty of breach of insurance contract, the Insurance Company-was free from any obligation to indemnify him and pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased passengers and the injured. It was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not having an effective driving license; that the vehicle was being plied against the route permit and that the driver by carrying 51 passengers as against 20 persons (including driver and conductor) permitted under the Registration Certificate, had violated the conditions of Registration Certificate. The Insurer further disputed the factual averments made in the claim petitions as regards age of the deceased/injured at the time of accident, their monthly income and loss of income suffered by the families of the deceased and injured.

3. The Tribunal at Jammu on going through the pleadings settled following issues-

"1, Whether an accident took place at a place Dhara District Ramban on 07.12.2003 clue to the rash and negligent driving of the offending matador No. JK02G 2108 in the hands of erring driver in which the deceased namely Farid Ahmed, Mohd Ashraf, Javaid Ahmed, Shabir Ahmed, Mohd. Iqbal, Taja Begum., Hafiza, Begum, Raja Begum, Master Imran, Parveen Begum, Sajad Ahmed, Mohd. Ibrahim, Khadam Begum, Sabuyra Begum suffered fatal injuries and petitioners Amina Banoo and Parveez Ahmed, suffered grievous nature of injuries.? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners in each case are entitled, to the compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether driver of offending Matador at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license to the knowledge of owner of offending matador and the matador was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, route permit etc? OPP1

4. Whether the offending matador at the time of accident was over loaded with passengers beyond the sitting capacity, if so what is its effect. O