An insurer is not liable for compensation if the deceased was a gratuitous passenger not covered under the insurance policy, and the registered owner must be a necessary party in the claim proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant-National Insurance Company Limited, through the medium of the instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’), has challenged the Award dated 29^th of September, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shopian in Claim Petition No. 40/Claim titled ‘Gulshana Begum & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.’ whereby an amount of Rs. 12,65,000/-, inclusive of the interim already granted, on “No Fault Basis Liability” was awarded in favour of the Claimants/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till final realization of the awarded amount.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, as emanate from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that one Abdul Rashid Reshi, husband of Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein and father of Claimant/ Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein, was travelling in a vehicle LP Truck bearing registration No. JK01A-0272 on 9^th of August, 2011, being driven by its driver, Mohd. Iqbal Reshi/ Respondent No.5 herein, rashly and negligently; that, on reaching Zaznar, Heerpora, the driver of the aforesaid vehicle lost control of the vehicle, as a result whereof, the vehicle skidded off the road and fell down about 150/200 feet deep gorge, thereby completely damaging the vehicle and inflicting serious injuries upon the said Abdul Rashid Reshi, who was taken to District Hospital, Shopian, wherefrom he was referred to SKIMS, Srinagar, where he died on 26^th of August, 2011; that an FIR bearing No. 264/2011 came to be registered with regard to the aforesaid accident in Police Station, Heerpora under Sections 279, 337 and 427 RPC.

3. Thereafter, the Claimants/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein appear to have approached the Tribunal with a Claim Petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 45.00 lacs for the death of the deceased. Pursuant to notice having been issued by the Tribunal, the Respondent Insurance-Company/ Appellant herein appeared and filed its Objections to the Claim Petition, while as, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle, did not file any Objections and were, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal.

4. In its Objections before the Tribunal, the Respondent- Insurance Company/ Appellant herein, stated that the Claim Petition was not maintainable against the Company, inasmuch as, the deceased was not a Labourer of the Truck employed by the insured and was not covered under the policy of insurance. It was further pleaded by the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, which amounts to breach of policy conditions, thereby exonerating the Company from the liability.

5. The Tribunal, vide Order dated 17^th of March, 2016, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following issues:

i. Whether on 9/8/2011, the deceased was a labourer of Hindustan Construction Corporation (HCC) died in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver (respondent No.2) of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK01A/027? (OPP);

ii. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the Petitioners are entitled to compensation to what extent and from whom? (OPP);

iii. Whether the deceased was not labourer of the insured truck on the date of occurrence? (OPR1);

iv. Whether the claim is not maintainable against Respondent No.1 as the insured of the offending vehicle has not been arrayed as party in the claim Petition? (OPR1);

v. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent No.2, driver on the date of accident without valid and effective D/L and valid vehicular documents. If so, what will be its effect on the claim petition? (OPR1);

and vi. Relief?

6. After conclusion of the proceedings and hearing the contesting parties, the learned Tribunal, in