JUDGMENT :

1. These are a bunch of three appeals arising out of the award dated 23.01.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow. Amongst the four initial appeals, Appeal bearing No.441 of 2014 (Smt. Shweta Lamba vs. Manoj Kumar Singh and another) was dismissed on 10.02.2017 on account of default and though an application for recall was moved, but that too was defective, hence, the Court was not inclined to take the matter forward. Consequently, the appeal stood dismissed. Thus, only three appeals bearing First Appeal From Order Nos. 488 of 2014, 439 of 2014 and 442 of 2014 are before this Court for consideration.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy and how the three appeals have evolved, it would be relevant to notice that one Shri Ajit Singh expired in a motor accident on 11.02.2010 while he was driving his Honda City Car bearing no. UP78-AZ-1116. He was travelling along with his family members, however the offending vehicle bearing no. UP32-T-8252, which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Honda City as a result of which, Shri Ajit Singh expired while his wife Smt. Pushpa Singh, his daughter Smt. Shweta Lamba and his grandson Master Ahan suffered injuries.

3. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Claim Petition No.78 of 2011 came to be filed by all the legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh, i.e. his wife Smt. Pushpa Singh, daughter Smt. Shweta Lamba and son Vivek Lamba and another daughter who was impleaded as respondent no.3 in the Claim Petition, namely Reshma (who was not travelling in the car with the family members). This Claim Petition was primarily in respect of compensation on account of death of Shri Ajit Singh.

4. Another Claim Petition was filed by Smt. Pushpa Singh in her personal capacity bearing no.77 of 2011 on account of injuries sustained by her. Smt. Shweta Lamba the daughter travelling with the family filed her Claim Petition bearing no. 425 of 2010 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her and so also a Claim Petition bearing no.76 of 2011 was filed on behalf of her son Master Ahan (grandson of late Ajit Singh). In this fashion four Claim Petitions were filed, one for compensation for death of Ajit Singh, whereas other three were for seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by the respective persons as mentioned above. All the four Claim Petitions were clubbed and were contested together.

5. Primarily the owner of the offending vehicle/ Truck bearing no.UP32-T-8252, namely Manoj Kumar Singh filed his written statement denying the allegations, however he stated that his vehicle in question was duly insured and also the driver possessed a valid and a subsisting license and the truck also possessed all necessary documents, thus, in case if any award is passed, it would be the Insurance Company who would be liable to subrogate the award.

6. The Insurance Company filed its separate written statement and contested on the plea that the truck in question was not insured on the given date and time inasmuch as it was stated that the accident occurred on 11.02.2010 at around 11 a.m. whereas the insurance policy issued by the Company though dated 11.02.2010 was effective from 6.13 p.m. and thus at the time when the accident occurred the truck in question was not insured, hence no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company.

7. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed 6 issues and the parties respectively lead their documentary as well as oral evidence. It will be relevant to notice at this stage that Manoj Kumar Singh, the owner of offending truck did not put in appearance as a witness nor his driver was examined as a witness and practically the matter proceeded ex-parte against him.

8. The Tribunal, while noticing the Claim Petitions before it on merit, found that the accident had occurred on 11.02.2010 and also f