The main legal point established was the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly regarding the maintainability of claim petitions, validity of driving licenses, insurance requirements, and entitlement of legal representatives to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the claimants.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 16.08.2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Additional District Judge, Court no. 5, Basti in MACP No. 99 of 2008 in which the learned tribunal has granted Rs. 1,50,00/- as compensation along with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that an accident took place on 22.05.2006. Deceased driver Prem Prakash along with owner of the Jeep and other persons returning from Tilak ceremony of nephew of Narsingh Pandey resident of Ladewa to Basti. At night about 10:30 PM near village Bankata when Jeep reached from Manauri Chauraha to railway crossing, a tractor trolly coming in front of the jeep, whose driver driving the tractor trolly very rashly and negligently and dashed the Jeep No. U.P.-51H/1300 and Jeep overturned in a pit and Krishna Kumar Srivastava, Dharmendra, Hanshlal and Bhaagwat Dubey who were sitting in the Jeep died on the spot and others sustained injures including driver and owner of the Jeep. Driver of the tractor trolly along with tractor trolly escaped from the spot. Due to injury, driver of Jeep Prem Prakash got unconscious and during treatment he died. Owner of the Jeep Umashanker Mishra and other injured had seen the accident. The Information of accident was given by the owner of the Jeep to shift his responsibility on the tractor trolly stating the tractor trolly is responsible for the accident and on the basis of the written report, Case Crime No. 806 / 06 under sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC was registered for the accident and case was investigated. Since owner of the Jeep and other injured are unable to inform about the registration no. of tractor trolly, driver and owner of the tractor trolly, the Investigating Officer submitted Final Report. Driver Prem Prakash was seriously injured in the accident and was admitted in District hospital, Basti from where after first aid he was referred to Medical College. Thereafter, injured Prem Prakash was admitted in Avatar Hospital, Lucknow for treatment where he died due to injuries sustained in the accident on 23.05.2006 at 10:00 PM. Post-mortem of the dead body was not conducted as the owner of the Jeep said that he along with Insurance Company will provide compensation. At the time of accident deceased Prem Prakash was 32 years of age and by profession he was driver and was healthy and unmarried person. He was getting Rs. 3000/- per month as salary and Rs. 300/- as monthly food allowance from the owner of the vehicle. Deceased Prem Prakash was residing with the claimant and giving his whole salary to them. Since, owner of the Jeep was the employer of deceased, therefore, he is responsible for the compensation. The Jeep was insured with National Insurance Company and the driver Hari Prakash @ Prem Prakash was having a valid license. Therefore this claim petition was filed by the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased.

4. The National Insurance Company filed a written statement and has denied the facts alleged in the claim petition and has specifically alleged that in absence of cause of contest, the claim petition is not maintainable and may be set aside. At the time of accident age of Prem Prakash was more than 32 years, he was not working as driver and he was also not getting the monthly income of Rs. 3000/- and claimants are not the heirs of the deceased. Claimant no. 1 is the brother of the deceased and claimant no. 2 is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) and claimant no. 2 is dependent of claimant no. 1 and claimant no. 1 is self independent. Therefore, claimants are not entitled to get compensation. It has been alleged that in view of FIR the accident took place because of rashness and negligence by tractor trolly and therefore, claim is not maintainable against the ins