JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Durga Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenges the judgment and award dated 15.9.1994 passed by XVI Additional District Judge/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in Claim Petition No. 175 of 1991 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with a direction upon the appellant herein to pay the above.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on the fateful day when the incident occurred the truck insured with the appellant was overloaded and was being driven by its driver on the excessive speed. The truck dashed with the electric wire which was there and due to the overloading the wire broke and sparks were there which touched the high voltage and spread to the village whereby the wife of the respondent-claimant breathed his last due to electrocution. The driver did not stopped his vehicle though it was overloaded. The deceased was skilled labourer earning Rs. 2200/- per month and was 20 years of age. The claimant filed claim petition. The Insurance Company filed its reply but the driver and owner did not file any reply. The reply of Insurance Company was one of denial. The Tribunal framed issues and while dealing with issue No.1 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on 4.3.1991 when the truck which was overloaded and was plying on the road in rash and negligent manner by its driver, it came in contact with low voltage electric wire. The low voltage wire broke and came in contact with high voltage wire which resulted into circulation of high voltage in low voltage wire. The high voltage circulated to the house of the deceased through low voltage wire and the deceased came in contact with the same. P.W.1, Rajesh Kumar Tripahti had seen the truck being overloaded and it being came in contact of low voltage electric wires. He was present at the place of incident. Lot of people gathered in the village and the driver of the truck ran away. P.W. 2 also deposed in similar way. D.W.1, Uttam Sahab Yadav, mentioned that there was no accident of his vehicle on the said date and village people stopped him and feigned ignorance about the wire. He does not even remember whether the police has made challan of his vehicle or not and why he was arrested by the police. All these facts cumulatively considered by the Court to come to the conclusion that accident occurred due to the use of vehicle as defined under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in Pappu and others Versus Vinod Kumar Lamba and others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 592 so as to contend that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner as the driver who was driving the vehicle in question does not have valid driving license and the vehicle was being plied against the policy conditions.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-claimants has placed reliance on the decisions in Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. Vasschala Uttam More, 1991 0 Supreme SC 322, Kalim Khan & Others vs. Fimidabee & Others, 2018 LawSuit (SC) 571, Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2001 LasWuit (SC) 6, First Appeal From Order No. 2520 of 2020 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Others) decided on 25.5.2012, Renu Devi and 5 others vs. Gurfan Ahmad and 2 others, 2022 LawSuit (All) 2019, decision of Madrash High Court in C.M.A. No. 2217 of 2015 (United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Krishnaven & others) decided on 5.10.2015, and decision of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in MAC App No. 52 of 2021 (State of J & K & Others vs. Mir Fathima & Others) decided on 22.9.2022 so as to rebut the grounds raised by the Insurance Company.

6. The decision cited by learned counsel for the respondent-claimants would have to be perused in the light of