The court established that liability for compensation lies primarily with the vehicle owner when an accident occurs outside the permit's authorized area, while allowing the Insurance Company to initially pay compensation.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by Gurpreet Singh (driver-cum-owner of truck No.PB-13AL-4709) taking exception to award dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, “the MACT”), vide which the liability to pay compensation to the claimants was held to be that of the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that a claim petition was preferred by the widow, two minor sons and the parents of one Surender under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the MV Act”), who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 23.01.2018.

3. Surender, as claimed, was working as a Conductor on a Canter bearing registration No.HR-39B-9040. On 22.01.2018, the said Canter, loaded with vegetables, was being plied from Vegetable Market, Delhi to Litani. On 23.01.2018, at about 01:00 a.m. (intervening night of 22.01.2018 & 23.01.2018), a truck bearing registration No.PB-13AL-4709 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’), which was being driven by the present appellant at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and struck the Canter head-on. Surender suffered multiple grievous injuries and died at the spot.

4. It was claimed that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the appellant. FIR No.17, dated 23.01.2018, was registered against the appellant under Sections 279 & 304A IPC at Police Station Barauda District Sonepat.

5. It was claimed that Surender was 29 years old at the time of his death. Apart from working as a Conductor, he also used to sell milk and his monthly income was Rs.15,000/-. It was further claimed that all the claimants were fully dependent upon him. A sum of Rs.50 lakhs was claimed as compensation.

6. The claim petition was opposed by the respondents. The driver- cum-owner denied all averments, including the factum of the accident, and took the stand that a false FIR had been registered in collusion with the police with a view to claim compensation.

7. The Insurance Company (The New India Assurance Company Limited) also raised its usual defences in its written statement. The factum of the accident was denied. It was averred that the offending vehicle was being driven in violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck No. PB-13AL/4709 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation amount from the respondents, if so, to what effect? OPP

3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the above vehicle at the relevant time? OPR3

4. Whether the petition has been filed in contravention of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act? OPR3

5. Relief.”

9. Parties led their respective evidence.

10. It was held by the MACT that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the appellant. As far as quantum is concerned, the age of Surender was assessed as 29 years. His income was assessed as Rs.8,500/- per month. 40% was added towards future prospects, and 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal e