The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of negligence, contributory negligence, and composite negligence in determining liability and compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.01.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 200 of 2003 (Raj Kumar Agrawal and Others Vs. Ahsan Ali and Others), whereby the claim petition of the claimants was allowed and awarded a sum of Rs.9,69,500/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. R.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and Mr. Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None has appeared for the owner, when the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved, as also the claimants have felt aggrieved by the decision of the learned Tribunal.

4. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, namely from the date of filing of the claim petition till final payment for the death of Smt. Rajni Agrawal, wife of claimant-appellant no.1 and mother of other minor children.

5. The brief facts as culled out from the record and the judgment are that Smt. Rajni Agrawal wife of Raj Kumar Agrawal, who was aged about 39 years and averred to be earning of Rs.40,000/-per month by doing service, farming and other business. On the fateful day, when she was going alongwith Smt. Kanchan Agrawal from Shahjahanpur to Nanital by car bearing registration no.27 B 8751. The aforesaid car was being driven by one Awadesh @ Nirdos Kumar Saxena. A truck bearing registration no. U.P. 22A 9857 being driven very rashly and negligently came and dashed with the car. The car driver and both the women sustain injuries.

6. The driver of the car and Smt. Rajani Agrawal died while they were being taken to the hospital. The First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the truck. The New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. (in short “Insurance Company”) filed its written statement wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company took the plea that the vehicle was being driven against the policy and there is violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and they were not liable to pay any compensation. They took the plea that there is no non-impleadment of all the legal representatives of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased was not doing farming activities and was not engaged in any job nor she was having any business. It is also contended that deceased did not die out of the injuries caused to her in the said accident. The driver of the car dashed with a unknown vehicle due to his own negligence and as the number of the said vehicle could not be known, only with the view to get compensation in collusion with the police and doctors in pre-planed manner and on concocted grounds, the claim petition was filed.

7. It was further contended before the Tribunal that the driver of the car was not having valid driving licence nor there was any valid registration certificate nor other valid papers. It is also avert that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount as the driver of the truck had no endorsement and could not have driven the vehicle. The opposite party no.5, Satya Narain Agrawal has also filed his reply admitting the averments made in the claim petition. The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the day of the accident. The legal heirs of the owner of the car have been substituted. The Insurance Company also took the plea of denial. The respondent nos.1 to 3 did not file any reply, therefore, the matter came be heard against them ex parte by Tribunal. The learned Tribunal framed about four issues.

8. The petitioners filed list of certain documentary evidences. No oral or documentary evidence has been led on behalf of any of opposite parties.

9. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the decision dated 27.01.2