The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation when the driver possesses a license to drive a vehicle with a capacity of more than six persons, as per the definition of 'omnibus' under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

By this judgment of mine, four appeals bearing FAO No.2721 of 2000, FAO No.2722 of 2000, FAO No. 2731 of 2000 and FAO No.2734 of 2000 shall be disposed of as common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from FAO No.2721 of 2000.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Tribunal') dated 05.08.2000, whereby, the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed and they have been awarded compensation from the date of filing claim petition till actual payment.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 25.05.1997 at about 2.30 a.m., the deceased, namely, Dwarka Dass Aggarwal along his son Sudarshan Kumar, daughter-in-law Sweety, Saroj Bala and Rekha, grand-children Sachin, Jyoti, Rishav, Honey, Ghoney, Kaku, Sakshi were going from Hoshiarpur to Malerkotla after attending the marriage of son of one Som Nath. Sudarshan Kumar along with his wife and daughter were in Maruti car, whereas, Dwarka Dass Aggarwal deceased along with his daughters-in-law Sweety, claimants Saroj Bala, Rekha and grand children Sachin, Jyoti, Rishav, Honey, Ghoney and Kaku, was in Tata Sumo No.PB-10X-313, which was being driven by Randhir Singh and owned by Abdul Rashid. One tractor trolley loaded with sugarcane was parked on the metallic road due to some defects in it. Tata Sumo hit from behind the other tractor trolley going ahead with sugarcane loaded in it. Due to impact, Sh. Dwarka Dass Aggarwal and other occupants of Tata Sumo received multiple and grievous injuries. Claimant Saroj Bala received close head injury with contusions/Dos with fracture on left side and fracture on right leg. There were injuries on the other parts of the body. Dwarka Dass Aggarwal died on the spot and other injured were referred to the hospital for treatment.

4. As per claim petition, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo which was being driven at a very high speed without observing the traffic rules.

5. Notices in the claim petitions were issued and the respondents were served. They filed separate written statements and contested the claim on the ground that the accident did not occur due to fault of driver of the Tata Sumo but due to the fault of tractor No.PB-32-9838. No FIR was registered and only DDR No.22 was recorded on 27.05.1997. Respondents prayed for dismissal of claim petitions but claim petitions were allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.08.2000. The amount of compensation was awarded along with interest from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment against respondents No.1 to 3 and liability of the respondents was held to be joint and several. The claim petition was dismissed against respondents No.4 and 5. The awards passed by the Tribunal have been challenged by the Insurance Company before this Court by filing four separate appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is based on conjecture and surmises and findings recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the same has been granted without appreciation of evidence.

7. Sudarshan Kumar was alleged to be an eye witness of the incident and he is the son of deceased and was examined as AW-1. Said witness was an interested witness and has supported the case of the claimants being interested witness. Rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved by an independent witness. Learned counsel also submits that the Tata Sumo is an omni bus and the same has been defined under Section 2(29) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per definition, "omni bus" means any motor vehicle constructed or adopted to carry more than six persons excluding the