JUDGMENT

A.S. NAIDU, J. — As both the appeals involve same facts and points of law, the same are heard together with consent of learned counsel for the parties and this common judgment disposes of both the Writ Petitions.

2. The appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd., has filed M.A. Nos.260 and 261 of 2002 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common award dated 04.12.2001 passed by the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case Nos.99 of 1990 (SN) and 100 of 1990 (SN) respectively.

3. The scenario of facts reveals that on 27.2.1990 Istak Ansari and Md. Iqbal Ansari were travelling in a truck (dumper) bearing registration No.ORJ-7297 along with their goods after closure of the Hat. The said truck, it was alleged, was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently it met with an accident and capsized. Istak Ansari died at the spot whereas Md. Iqbal Ansari sustained fatal injuries and inspite of best treatment his life could not be saved. The wife, son and daughter of Istak Ansari filed a petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act which was registered as Misc. (A) Case No.99 of 1990 (SN) whereas the petition filed by mother of Md. Iqbal Ansari was registered as Misc. (A) Case No.100 of 1990 (SN). After receiving notice the owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the accident but then took the stand that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the insurance policy was valid. The appellant-Insurance Company in its written statement vaguely denied the averments made in the claim peti¬tion. It took the stand that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence and as the vehicle was not authorized to carry passengers the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

4. On the basis of the pleadings three issues were framed. In order to substantiate their case the claimants got one witness examined and exhibited three documents. On the other hand the Insurance Company for the reasons best known neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. After discussing the evidence in extenso the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver thereby causing death of two persons. It was also held that both the deceased persons were travelling in the truck (dumper) along with their goods. On the basis of such finding a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 28.8.1990 in Misc. (A) Case No.99 of 1990 (SN) and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 28.8.1990 in Misc. (A) Case No.100 of 1990 (SN) was awarded towards compensation. The said award is assailed in both the appeals mainly on the ground that the deceased persons being passengers in a goods vehicle the Tribunal committed manifest error in holding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation and the insurance Policy was not valid.

5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand submitted that no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the Insurance Company in support of its stand that the offending vehicle was not insured. Neither any witness was examined nor was any document produced. Thus the allegation made, which was sup¬ported by both oral and documentary evidence remained unchal¬lenged and has been rightly accepted. Relying upon Ext.3 copy of insurance policy of the truck (dumper) he submitted that in absence of any rebuttal evidence the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the insurance policy was valid on the date of acci¬dent. So far as the main contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased persons being passengers in a goods vehicle were not entitled to any compensation is concerned, there