The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of no fault liability in determining the liability of the insurance company in a motor accident case.

R. L. Anand, J.

1. This is an appeal and has been directed against the award dated 3.3.97 passed by Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Hoshiarpur, which dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners-appellants resham Kaur, Tilak Raj, Gurbaksh Kaur, sheela Devi, Dharam Chand and Kartari against Ramesh Kumar, driver of truck no. PUH 5446, Hari Mitter, owner of truck no. PUH 5446, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , which insured the said truck, Subhash chander, driver of car No. CH 01-C-9502, owner of the car and the insurance company, with which the car was insured.

2. The case pleaded by the appellants before the Tribunal was that Resham Kaur is the widow of deceased Roop Lal. She also filed the petition as natural guardian of Tilak Raj, her son. Gurbaksh Kaur and sheela Devi are the daughters of deceased and Dharam Chand and Kartari are the parents of deceased Roop Lai, who according to the appellants-claimants was a young person of 48 years and was a skilled mason and was earning Rs.2,500 approximately per month. The accident took place on 1.4.1993 near the Gurudwara of village kotla Gonspur within the jurisdiction of police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur. The deceased was allegedly travelling in truck no. PUH 5446 driven by respondent No.1 Ramesh Kumar and was returning after attending satsang at Dera Beas of Radha swami. The deceased survived for six days only and, according to the claimants, they have spent a sum of Rs.35,000 on his medical treatment. Two vehicles were involved. One is truck No. PUH 5446 and other is car No. CH Ol-C-9502. The case set up by the claimants in the claim petition was that truck was hired from village sainchan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur for going to Dera Beas of Radha Swami to attend satsang and when it was returning from Dera Beas to village Thathlan on 1.4.1993 and reached near the Gurudwara of village Kotla Gonspur, a car bearing registration No. CH Ol-C-9502 came from the opposite direction. When the driver of the car slightly turned the car, the nut-bolts of the kamani of the truck opened due to the slight turn, as a result of which the rear wheels of the truck opened and the truck fell down on one side of the road. It hit against the car and the car turned towards other side. The passengers of the car also got injuries. Similarly the passengers of the truck sustained injuries besides the deceased. The people from the nearby village arranged a vehicle and removed the injured to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur for treatment. It has been specifically pleaded by the claimants that both the vehicles were going on their correct side of the road. With these allegations the claimants had claimed a total compensation of rs.2,20,000 against the driver, owner and insurance company of the truck and the driver, owner and insurance company of the car.

3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No.1 Ramesh Kumar, respondent No.2 Hari mitter, driver and owner respectively of the truck and respondent No.3 New India assurance Co. Ltd. , which insured the truck, filed written statements and denied the allegations. The stand taken up by the insurance company was that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Moreover, the deceased Roop Lal was a gratuitous passenger and thus the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the amount of compensation. No contest was given by the owner and insurance company of the car.

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

(1) Whether Roop Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4, while driving truck No. PUH 5446 and car No. CH ol-C-9502 respectively? OPA

(2) If issue No.1 is proved to what amount the claimants are entitled to receive compensation and from whom? OPA

(3) Whether the respondent No.1 was having a valid driving licence? If so, its