JUDGMENT

Ritu Tagore, J.

Appellant-Insurance company has filed an appeal against the award dated 07.12.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, seeking a grant of recovery rights.

2. On 09.01.2014 at 5.15 p.m, the deceased S. Jagir Singh and his brother S. Tarlok Singh (PW-3) were going towards Focal Point Markfed, Khanna on their respective bicycles, when they reached in front of Police Station Sadar, Khanna, respondent No.1 came from Khanna side driving his motor-cycle bearing registration No.PB-08-CL-5827 (the offending vehicle) rashly and negligently and crashed into the bicycle of S. Jagir Singh (since deceased), who received multiple injuries that resulted in his death at the spot.

3. On 11.01.2014, FIR No.09 under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered at Police Station City Khanna on the statement of S. Tarlok Singh (PW-3), an eye-witness to the accident.

4. The widow and unmarried children of the deceased filed a claim petition under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 before the Tribunal, praying for a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.Fifteen lakhs) along with interest from the date of accident till date of realization, on the ground that the deceased was working as a Supervisor with M/s Barson Cycle Spare Parts, Factory Sirhind Road, Khanna and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants solely depended on the income of the deceased for their livelihood.

5. Respondent No.1 (driver-cum-owner) filed a written statement wherein he denied having caused the accident. He pleaded he was riding the motorcycle at a very low speed with his wife and two minor children on the pillion ride, just behind the cycle of the deceased and that no other person was accompanying the deceased. He submitted that, a car which was being driven rashly and negligently came from behind and collided with his motorcycle, leading to his motorcycle hitting the cycle of the deceased and making him, his wife and children fall down and sustain injuries. He asserted the accident happened because of negligent driving of the unknown car driver and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further averred that respondent No.2, the insurer of the vehicle, is liable for paying the compensation and prayed for dismissal of petition.

6. Respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement and averred that the petition has been filed on false facts in collusion with the respondent No.1. Further, claimed that the vehicle was being driven by the owner in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and without a valid and effective driving licence. The insured committed wilful default upon breach of terms of the insurance policy. With the aforesaid averments, pleaded for the dismissal of petition.

7. Based on pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-

1. Whether deceased Jagir Singh son of Mohinder Singh died in a Motor Vehicle accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving motor cycle bearing No. PB-08-CL-5827 on 9.1.2014 in rashly and negligently?OPP

2- Whether the claimant(s) are legal representative of the deceased entitled for compensation, if so to what extent?OPP

3- Whether the claim petition is maintainable?OPP

4- Whether the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party?OPP

5- Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at