The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the vehicle owner and the insurance company to pay compensation for accidents caused by rash and negligent driving, as well as the requirement for evidence to support claims and the responsibility of the insurance company to prove policy violations.

This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 16-08-1997, passed by M.A.C.T. / District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C. Case No. 03 of 1996, whereby the claim of the claimant was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the appellant, owner of the vehicle, has been directed to pay the same.

3. Brief facts of the case, are that on 01-12-1995 at about 1:30 P.M., Smt. Anita Devi was traveling in Jeep registration No. U.P. 07-D / 491 from Village Paubo to Notha. Said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, Jagat Singh, who was owner as well as driver of the said vehicle, resultantly, the vehicle fell in a gorge and Anita Devi died in the accident. She was aged 27 years at the time of her death. Claimant No.1, husband of the deceased and claimants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, minor children of the deceased filed claim petition alleging that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month for her family. It is also alleged in the claim petition that the vehicle was ensured with respondent No.2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. A sum of Rs. 8,92,000/ - was claimed by the claimants.

4. Respondent No.1, owner and driver of the vehicle, filed his written statement admitting that the accident did take place but that was so due to some technical fault in the vehicle. He further pleaded, that the vehicle was ensured with the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of the accident. Respondent Oriental Insurance Co., filed its separate written statement and contested the claim alleging that the conditions of the policy were violated by the owner of the vehicle. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the owner of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and registration certificate of the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was also pleaded that passengers were in excess of the limit allowed to take in the vehicle.

5. The Tribunal framed following issues, during the trial:

1. Whether, Smt. Anita Devi died in the accident ?

2. Whether, correct age of Smt. Anita Devi is recorded in the claim petition ?

3. Whether, Anita Devi was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month, as alleged in the claim petition ?

4. Whether, the vehicle registration No. U.P. 07-D/491 was being driven without valid papers, in violation of the terms of the policy, as alleged by respondent No. 2 in its written statement ?

5. To, what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and, if so, from whom ?

6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the tribunal gave the findings that Smt. Anita Devi died in the accident while she was traveling in Jeep registration No. U.P. 07-D / 491. It is also admitted fact between the parties, that appellant Jagat Singh was the owner and driver of the vehicle, at the time of the accident. As to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question, there is un-controverted evidence of P. W.2, Virender Singh, an eyewitness. As such, it is also established on the record that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the appellant Jagat Singh. Neither owner and driver, Jagat Singh nor the Insurance Co. adduced any evidence before the tribunal against the aforesaid evidence of P.W.2, Virender Singh, as such, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the accident Had .occurred due to the rash and negligent driving en the part .of the driver of the vehicle in question.

7. As to the fact, that the claimant Ne. 1, Bhag Singh Rawat was husband of the deceased and Balwant Singh, Sanjay Singh and Jai Singh were miner children of the deceased, pleas are net specifically denied in the written statements .of the opposite parties, including the appellant. As such, statement of P.W.1, Bhag Singh Rawat to this effect is rightly believed by the tribunal and they have been rightly held to be entitled to the amount of compensation for the less they