The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company, having insured the vehicle involved in the accident, is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and can recover it from the driver and owner of the vehicle.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This is an appeal filed by the insurance company that had insured the vehicle, the driver of which was found to be negligent, leading to an accident on 15.01.2012, in which Gurjit Kaur, aged 43 years, was unfortunately killed.

2. The facts, as taken from the impugned Award of the learned Tribunal, are that on that date the deceased was returning home to village Madiana from Ladwa, along with her husband and minor daughter Simranjit Kaur, the latter aged 16 years, on a motorcycle driven by Amrik Singh.

When they reached near a petrol pump, a truck bearing registration No.PH-06-G-6300 came from the side of the Ambala, driven by respondent No.6 herein, allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, on which the deceased and respondents No.1 and 2 herein were travelling. The said respondents fell on the left side due to the accident and Gurjit Kaur fell on the right side, upon which the tyre of the truck went over her head, due to which she died on the spot.

Respondents No.1 and 2 also suffered injuries. Respondent No.6 is stated to have run away from the spot.

A post mortem examination was conducted on the body of the deceased at the A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura and it was claimed that Rs.70,000/- was spent on her last rites etc. An FIR was also registered at Police Station Shambhu.

3. Consequently, the claim petition was filed by the present respondents No.1 to 5, who are the husband, two minor children and parents-in-law of deceased Gurjit Kaur, seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the "offending truck", i.e. respondents No.6 and 7, as also the appellant herein.

4. On notice issued, the appellant and the driver of the vehicle (respondent No.6 herein) put in appearance and filed separate written statements, whereas the owner of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No.2, was proceeded against ex parte.

Respondent No.6, Raj Kumar, other than taking the usual preliminary objections, denied that he was responsible for causing the accident, whereas the present appellant insurance company also took up various preliminary objections, including the fact that neither the driver of the truck nor the driver of the motorcycle were holding valid driving licences and further, that the truck did not have a valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and route permit. It was, however, admitted that for the period in question, the truck was insured with the company, with the company yet denying liability to pay any compensation, on the ground that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

5. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the usual issues with regard to negligence in driving, entitlement of compensation and validity of the driving licence of the driver of the truck were framed, after which, on the basis of evidence led, the Tribunal held respondent No.6 herein guilty of negligence in driving, thereby causing the accident in question.

On various parameters, a total compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- was awarded to the claimants-respondents No.1 to 5, along with interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid sum, running from the date of the filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization of the compensation amount.

With respondent No.6 not having appeared before the Court to get his statement recorded, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the judicial file of the criminal case registered against him, found that an offence under Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 had been added, as it had been found that respondent No.6 was not carrying a driving licence.

Consequently, though all the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, the present appellant was ordered to make the actual payment but was given rights to recover the same from the other two respondents, i.e. the driver and owner of the "offending truck".

6. Hence, the insurance company is in appeal challenging its liability to pay the compensation, firstly contending that the ent