Insurance companies remain liable to pay compensation even in cases of temporary vehicle registration, although they may seek recovery rights against the vehicle's owner for policy violations.

JUDGMENT

Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The appellant - National Insurance Company Limited has filed present appeal against impugned Award dated 19.04.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 seeking compensation on account of death of their son Deepak in a motor vehicular accident under section 166 and 140 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 was allowed and the claimants and proforma respondent No. 4 were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,85,848/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

2. Karan Singh and Krishna Devi have filed claim petition under section 166 and 140 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 to claim compensation on account of death of their son Deepak in a road side accident which took place on 15.10.2016. At the time of accident, Deepak was 26 years old. He was Barber by profession and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. On the fateful day of 15.10.2016, Deepak was going from his village Chulkana to Samalkha for domestic work on his motorcycle. At about 06:30 P.M. when he reached near wine factory, Chulkana road, District Panipat, the offending motorcycle bearing Temporary Registration No. HR-99T-YM-8701 came from the opposite side driven by the son of respondent No. 1 namely Gaurav rashly and negligently without observing traffic rules and hit against the motorcycle of Deepak. Both the motorcyclists fell down and received serious injuries. Their motorcycles were also damaged. The brother of deceased took Deepak to CHC, Samalkha but he was referred to PGI Khanpur and after few hours, he was further referred to PGIMS Rohtak for treatment. Ultimately, Deepak succumbed to the injuries during treatment. They had spent Rs. 1 lac on treatment. The driver of offending motorcycle also died during treatment. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending motorcycle. Regarding this accident, F.I.R. bearing No. 655 dated 16.10.2016 was registered. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body. The claimants have suffered great loss on account of untimely death of their son. They have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization with costs.

3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. The respondent No. 1 Somi who was mother of the driver did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.07.2018. Manjeet - respondent No. 2 appeared in this case and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the claim petition was not maintainable. The petitioners had no locus standi to file the case. The petitioners concealed material facts from the Tribunal. In-fact, vehicle bearing Temporary Registration No. HR-99T-YM-8701 was financed by the answering respondents. Thereafter, the respondents sold the vehicle to one Sandeep on 20.06.2016 who gave affidavit that he shall be responsible for any police case, Court case, challan etc. Therefore, on 20.06.2016, the answering respondent had no concern with the vehicle in accident. Even the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place with the said vehicle, in that eventuality, the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The claim petition was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On the merits of the case, the facts were denied for want of knowledge and the claimants may be put to strict proof