JUDGMENT :

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “insurer”) is in appeal against the award dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in File No. 53/Claim titled “Satya Devi and others vs. Guddi and others.

2. By virtue of the award impugned, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,27,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the amount is realized. The award impugned is assailed by the insurer primarily on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the offending vehicle and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (hereafter referred to as the “claimants”).

3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as gatherable from the pleadings of the parties, are:

On 25.06.2009, a Truck bearing registration No. JK02S/1127 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Munshi Ram met with an accident near Samroli (Kud) resulting into death of one Onkar Singh, the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos. 2 to 5 and son of claimant No.6. In the said accident, the driver of the offending vehicle also lost his life. The claimants having been deprived of their sole breadwinner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.48 lac. It was claimed that the deceased was a shopkeeper and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claim petition was contested by the insurer only, others were proceeded ex parte.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the deceased died in the road traffic accident caused on account of the reckless driving of vehicle bearing registration No.1127/JK02S by its driver on 25.06.2009 at Samroli ?

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

iii. Whether the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and so liability if any arises on account of his death cannot be fastened on the insurance company ?

iv. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied on the road without valid and effective RP, FC and without a valid driving licence ?

5. The claimants, in order to prove their case, produced Ranjit Singh and Satya Devi (one of the claimants) as their witnesses. They also placed on record some documentary evidence to substantiate their claim for compensation. On the other hand, the appellant-insurer produced one Vikas Raina, Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company as its witness. It also relied upon some documentary evidence on record.

6. On the basis of the evidence led, the Tribunal found the issue No.1 proved in favour of the claimants and came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased had occurred in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver on 25.06.2009 at Samroli. On issue No.3, the Tribunal held that the insurer had failed to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, it was not entitled to be absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner. Without rendering any finding as to whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or not, the Tribunal held that even in the case of a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the 3rd party. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to decide issue No.2 and held the claimants entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,27,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The insurer was directed to pay the compensation to the 3rd party i.e, the claimants, but gave liberty to the insurer to recover the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle (insured).

7. Mr. Vishnu G