JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has validly been served upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 yet not one turns up on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in spite of repeated calls, hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 27.07.2013 passed by Learned District Judge-VII-cum-M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad, passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 125 of 2009 dated 27.07.2013 whereby and where under the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,64,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of its realization.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 08.08.2008 at about 8:25 p.m. while the deceased- Anand Kumar was returning from Career Point Coaching Institute, Bokaro where he was employed as a Manager; along with his brother-in-law on a TVS Victor motorcycle as a pillion rider, the offending truck being rashly and negligently driven dashed the motorcycle from behind, as a result of which the deceased was thrown on the road and was ran over by the offending truck resulting in death of the said Anand Kumar. It is further stated that the deceased was 28 years old at the time of his accidental death.

5. The defendant No. 1-owner of the offending truck challenged the maintainability of the claim petition on various technical grounds and asserted that the driver of the offending truck was holding a valid and effective driving license and pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the defendant No. 2 and the insurance was valid and effective at the time of accident and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if any.

6. The defendant No. 2-Insurance Company in Para-5 of its written statement stated that the offending truck was under a contract of insurance with the said Insurance Company from 24.12.2007 to 23.12.2008.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed the following eight issues:

(I) Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?

(II) Whether the claimants got cause of action for the same?

(III) Whether the deceased Anand Kumar died on 08.08.2008 caused by road-traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. JH-02J-8256?

(IV) Whether the driver of offending Truck No. JH-02J-8256 had valid & effective driving license with valid permit?

(V) Whether the truck was insured at the time of accident?

(VI) Whether the terms and condition of insurance been violated to extent that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation?

(VII) Whether the claimants are legal heirs of deceased and accordingly they are entitled for compensation sought for?

(VIII) Whether the claimants entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

8. The tribunal considered the evidence in the record i.e. six witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 12. The tribunal first took up issue Nos. (I), (II), (III), (V) and (VII) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident. The tribunal also came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to seek compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and they have a valid cause of action for the claim petition. Hence, the claim petition is maintainable.

9. Thereafter, the tribunal took up issue No. (VI) and came to the conclusion that there is no breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the defendant-owner of the vehicle.

10. The tribunal next took up issue No. (VIII) and came to the conclusion that though PW-5 Namrata Kumari Anand the wife of the deceased, PW-3 Manish Kumar, PW-1 Sadan Prasad the fa