JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. Since in all the above mentioned appeals, Insurance Company has challenged award dated 19.07.2016 on the ground that no fitness certificate was produced by respondent-Gurmeet Singh (owner/driver of the offending vehicle) to prove that offending vehicle was fit to drive on the road, therefore, all the appeals are decided vide this common judgment.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2015, at about 7.30 AM, deceased Diyal Singh was going from village Chhanga Rai Uttar to village Kahna Dhesian along with some other persons namely Bhagwanti, Durga Bibi, Santo Bibi, Desh Singh, Harmesh Singh, Sona Singh, Joginder Singh, Bishamber Singh, Jarnail Singh, Jaspal Singh, Santosh Kumari and Amarjeet Kaur in a Land Cruiser, which was being driven by Sonu at slow speed and on the left side of the road. After crossing village Alfuke, when they had gone little ahead towards Ferozepur, the offending truck came at fast speed from the opposite direction and while coming on the wrong side of the road, it struck against the Land Cruiser. As a result of this accident, all the occupants of the Land Cruiser received serious injuries. They all were shifted to the hospital. Bhagwanti, Kartaro Bibi, Durga Bibi, Santo Bibi, Desh Singh, Dayal Singh, Bishamber Singh, Harmesh Singh and Surjit Singh @ Babbu died in this accident. It is specifically pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who was driving the offending truck at that time.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether Diyal Singh son of Khan Singh had died on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 13.03.2015 at about 7.30 AM in the area of village Alfuke District Ferozepur, due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. RJ 07 G 5736 by respondent No.1? OPP

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

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 2.

5. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/respondents. However, the appellant/Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation.

Hence, the present appeals.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

7. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the respondent–owner of the offending vehicle failed to place on record any valid fitness certificate to establish that the vehicle was fit to be driven on the road. It is contended that the absence of fitness certificate amounts to a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned counsel further submits that while adjudicating the claim petition, learned Tribunal has completely overlooked this material aspect in the impugned award and has nevertheless held insurance company liable to pay the compensation. On this basis, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–claimant argues that the insurance company has failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish the alleged breach of the terms of the insurance policy. He further contends that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant-insurance company to prove that the offending vehicle did not possess valid fitness certificate at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that there is no specific condition in the insurance policy (Ex. R-4) requiring the existence of a fitness certificate,