Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the impugned award dated 4.8.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Court No. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 44 of 2008.

2. Controversy, in brief, relates to an accident occurred on 26.1.2008. The deceased Rajesh Kumar was driving his Marshal Geep No. U.P. 32 Z/8334 on the way from Lucknow to Lakhimpur Kheri. At about 7.00p.m., when the vehicle arrived near Sitapur towards Lakhimpur, on account of failure of steering of Geep, the vehicle lost its balance and overturned in the pit adjoining the road. Rajesh Kumar was seriously injured and later on, he was admitted to Ayush Nursing Home from where, he was referred to Lucknow. On his way to Lucknow, Rajesh Kumar succumbed to the injuries near Bakshi-Ka-Talab. After Panchayatnama, he was cremated in his own district Lakhimpur Kheri. The deceased was head of the family leaving behind his widow wife and son. He used to drive the vehicle on monthly salary of Rs. 5000/- and keeping in view the expected age of 70 years, the claim petition was filed for compensation to the extent of Rs. 42,00,000/-.

3. The owner of the vehicle Om Prakash filed his written statement and stated that the vehicle is registered with R.T.O. Office and insured with National Insurance Company. On the date of accident, the vehicle was insured.

4. On the other hand, the National Insurance Company took a plea that the deceased cannot be driver of the vehicle since the vehicle was owned by his own father Shri Om Prakash. It is further stated that the owner of the vehicle had not informed the Insurance Company with regard to the accident. A plea has also been taken that the deceased was not having the driving licence.

5. On behalf of Shanti Devi, the factum of accident has been proved with assertion that the deceased was driver of the vehicle. It was also stated that a portion of land was given to him by Om Prakash and from the income earned from the vehicle, the deceased used to serve his wife Manju and two sons and resided in Lakhimpur.

6. The tribunal has framed six issues, out of which, issue No. 1 relates to accident, issue No. 2 relates to negligent driving of the vehicle, issue No. 3 is with regard to insurance cover, issue No. 4 relates to driving licence, issue No. 5 relates to entitlement of compensation and issue No. 6 with regard to registration and fitness of the vehicle.

7. Before the tribunal, P. W. 1, wife of the deceased stated that her husband Rajesh Kumar used to serve his family from the earning received by driving the vehicle. She has proved the factum of accident but not an eye-witness. However, P.W. 2 Sanjay Kumar is the eye-witness. He stated that the vehicle after crashing with culvert overturned in a pit. He further stated that the police arrived at the spot since the residence of the Superintendent of Police was situated nearby the scene of occurrence. The tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred on 26.1.2008 at about 7.00p.m. at the place in question.

8. The tribunal further recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of failure of steering. The tribunal further observed that the appellant insurance company has not led any evidence to establish that the accident occurred because of fault of the driver of the vehicle. With regard to insurance cover, the tribunal has also recorded a finding that on the date of occurrence, the vehicle was insured by the appellant insurance company. The deceased was also having valid driving licence on the date of occurrence. The driving licence was valid from 1.4.2003 to 31.1.2023. The tribunal rejected the plea of the appellant insurance company that the owner of the Geep himself had given the vehicle to his own son, hence he is not covered by third party insurance and no liability may be fastened on the insurance company to pay compensation. The