JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Owner against the award dated 21.03.2016 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.9,14,000/- and the Owner was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2009 at about 2 PM, the claimant No.1 Gurdev Singh alongwith Amarjit Singh (since deceased) started from Nagar side to Apra Town on their motorcycle make Bullet bearing Registration No.PB-08-AS-7975. Amarjit Singh was driving the motorcycle at a very normal speed on his correct side. When they reached near Thalla Mor, Amarjit Singh dropped the claimant No.1 from the motorcycle and went to fill the petrol in his motorcycle from the petrol pump. Suddenly, a truck bearing registration No.PB-12-K-8773 driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came and hit the motorcycle of Amarjit Singh. Resultantly, Amarjit Singh fell on the road and suffered multiple injuries on various parts of his body and died at the spot. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing Registration No. PB-12-K-8773 by respondent No.1. The police also reached at the spot and on the statement of claimant No.1, the FIR was registered.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents in claim petition appeared and filed their separate written replies denying the factum of accident and compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

"1. Whether Amarjit Singh lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing Registration No.PB-12-K-8773 driven by respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the present claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 1 and 2

4. Whether the petitioners have not locus standi to file the present petition? OPR 1 & 2

5. Whether the petitioners are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR 1 and 2

6. Whether the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the court? OPR 1 and 2

7. Whether the petition is time barred? OPR 1 and 2

8. Whether the present petition is bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of the necessarily party? OPR3

9. Whether the present petition does not come within the ambit of claim tribunal? OPR3

10. Whether the answering respondent reserves its rights to take the plea about the permit for transportation and validity of driving licence of the driver? OPR3

11. Whether the accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of the motorcycle? OPR3

12. Relief."

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant-Onwer was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Owner contends that learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability upon appellant-Owner to pay the compensation to the claimant-respondent No.2. He further contends that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident and there was no violation in the term of policy, therefore, the respondent No.1-Insurance Company shall be solely liable to pay the compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company contends that the accident in question occurred around 02:00 PM whereas, appellant-Owner of the offending vehicle purchased the insurance policy at 04:00 PM, therefore, at the time of accident the offending vehicle was not insured. He therefore, contends that the learned Tribunal