By the Court.—The First Appeal From Order arises out of Claim Petition No. 24 of 2002 (Smt. Gulshan Jahan and 7 others v. Om Prakash and another) filed on account of death of Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan in the accident that had taken place on 17th November, 2001 with Truck No. U.P.44-A/2098 owned by Om Prakash Singh.

2. The said Claim Petition No. 24 of 2002 was filed by Smt. Gulshan Jahan and 7 others under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the averments that the deceased Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan was the sole bread earner of the family; on 17th November, 2001 he went to Sultanpur for business purposes but Truck bearing No. U.P.44-A/2098 which was being negligently driven by the driver hit the husband of Smt. Gulshan Jahan as a result of which he and many others died and many were injured; the husband of the petitioner No. 1 used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month from the business; First Information Report could not be lodged in time since medical treatment was immediately required to be provided to the injured, and, therefore, as the bread earner had succumbed to the injuries, the claimants suffered irreparable injury and appropriate compensation should be awarded to them.

3. A reply was filed to the Claim Petition. Opposite Party No. 1 Om Prakash Singh stated that he was the owner of the truck bearing No. U.P.44-A/2098; truck was insured with the National Insurance Company Branch Rai Bareilly upto 18th December, 2001; truck was being driven by Taufeeq Ahamd Khan, who had a valid and effective driving license; truck was carrying cement from Tikeriya Industrial Area to Faizabad when the ‘Kamani’ of the truck broke down as a result of which the truck lost balance and over turned killing two persons and injuring three; the injured were taken to the hospital by the police; passengers were not sitting in the truck at the time of accident and the owner had also given instructions to the driver not to permit any person to sit in the truck and assurance had also taken from the driver of this effect; the driver had informed the owner that Imtiyaz Ahmad was not sitting in the truck at the time of accident; that there was no violation of the terms and conditions contained in the Insurance policy; that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving and that the owner was not responsible for payment of any compensation.

4. The National Insurance Company also filed a reply to the Claim Petition. It was stated that the driver did not have a valid and effective license at the time of accident and so the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation; the truck owner did not inform the Insurance Company of the accident; the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the truck driver and so the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation; the truck was being driven contrary to the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act since passengers were being carried for which no premium had been paid; the insured had not followed the provisions of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in any case the claimants were not dependent on the deceased.

5. The following issues were framed :

(1) Whether the death of Imtiyaz Ahmad-husband of claimant No. 1 had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck No. U.P.44-A/2098.

(2) Whether on the date of accident, the driver of the truck had a valid and effective driving license.

(3) Whether the truck was insured and whether it was being used in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance policy.

(4) Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation and if so then from which opposite party and to what extent.

6. In support of the claim petition, documentary evidence in the form of post-mortem report was filed and three witnesses P.W. 1, Krishna Chandra Tiwari; P.W. 2 Smt. Gulshan Jahan; P.W. 3 Safiq Ahmad gave the evidence. On behalf of the owner of the truck, driving license, payment of deposit of