The burden of proof rests with the Insurance Company to establish breaches of the insurance policy and driving license requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

ORDER :

In all the aforesaid appeals the issues raised by the appellants are akin and analogous to each other, as such, the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Facts

1. A Motor Vehicle bearing registration No. JK02P/9709 (for short “the offending vehicle”) on its way from Thathri to Gandoh met with an accident on 17.01.2009 resulting into multiple deaths and injuries to the passengers travelling in the said offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was being driven by its driver, namely, Jaffer Hussain and owned by one-Liyakat Ali, being respondents herein.

2. The legal heirs of the dead as well as the injured passengers travelling in the offending vehicle filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhaderwah (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking compensation thereof under and in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”).

3. In the said claim petitions, besides impleading the above named owner and driver of the offending vehicle as respondents therein, the Insurance Company/appellant herein as well came to be impleaded as party respondents owing to the reason that the offending vehicle was insured with it.

4. The Tribunal after entertaining the said claim petitions issued notice to the respondents therein, whereupon the respondents owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not appear, whereas the respondent-Insurance Company/appellant herein appeared and filed objections to the claim petitions.

5. The Tribunal upon the pleadings of the contesting parties in the said claim petitions framed the following issues :-

1. Whether on 17-01-2009 the deceased namely Sara Begumwas travelling in Matador No: JK02P 9709 from Thathri to Kahara and the vehicle met with an accident near Kahara due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, as a result of which deceased died? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled td any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the vehicle was being driven by a person without valid driving licence? OPR-1.

4. Whether the vehicle was over loaded at the relevant time? If so, what is its effect on the petition? OPR-1,

5. Relief.

6. After framing of the aforesaid issues, the parties came to be directed by the Tribunal to lead their evidence, whereafter the claimants led their evidence in order to prove the issues onus whereof was put on them, whereas the respondent-Insurance Company/appellant herein did not lead any evidence to prove the issue/s onus whereof was put on it and the Tribunal upon adjudication of all the claim petitions, consequently, passed the awards which are impugned in the instant appeals.

7. The Insurance Company/appellant herein has challenged the impugned awards on multiple grounds urged in the instant memo of appeals.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Mr. Ravinder Sharma, appearing counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company herein while making his submission in tune with the grounds urged in the instant appeals would contend that the Tribunal failed to address to the issue of overloading of the offending vehicle which admittedly on the date and time of the accident was carrying more passengers than permitted in terms of documents of the offending vehicle as also the insurance policy pertaining to the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver without a valid driving licence and that the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants on a higher side, wrongly having taken the monthly income of the deceased/injured without there being any credible evidence on record.

On the contrary, appearing counsels for the respondents (being the claimants in the claim petitions as also the owner of the offending vehicle), opposed the submissions of Mr. Sharma, Advocate and would contend that the Tribunal passed the impugned awards validly and legally and that the Insurance Company/appellant herein failed t