Lok Pal Singh, J.

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25.11.2017 passed by M. A. C. T. /District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in M. A. C. P. case no. 14 of 2017, whereby the claimants/respondents have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the appellant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of petition till the date of actual payment.

2. While hearing on admission, learned counsel for the appellant insisted that the interim relief application has been filed and if court is not willing to grant any interim order then the purpose of filing the appeal would frustrate and in such an event, the Court may decide the appeal at the admission stage. In such circumstances, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage today itself.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Mangal Singh was owner-cum-driver of vehicle no. UK09TA-0468 Bolero. On 19.01.2017 at 08:30 he was coming back by vehicle no. UK09TA-0468 from Theem Consultancy Dharkot. At the place Khambhikhal bend Chaudhar due to some technical fault the vehicle fell down into 600 mts. deep gorge, due to which the deceased received injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants filed the claim petition with the averments that the deceased was a driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and was earning Rs. 36,000/- per month. At the time of accident, he was only about 35 years old.

4. The appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. filed its written statement and denied all the averments of the claim petition. In preliminary objection, it stated that the driver-owner was not insured and no premium was paid for owner-driver and as such the petition for compensation of deceased driver-owner is not maintainable. The insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation to the owner of the vehicle so the owner is not entitled for compensation. In additional plea, it is stated that at the time of the accident the owner of the vehicle was not having the valid registration, permit, fitness and insurance policy, the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving license at the time of the accident. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the claim petition is liable to be rejected against the insurance company.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in this petition:-

(i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable as alleged by the opposite party/insurance in para no. 1 & 2 of written statement? If so, its effect?

(ii) Whether the deceased Mangal Singh owner-cum-driver of vehicle no. UK09 TA0468 died due to the injuries received in accident said to be occurred on 19. 01. 2017 at 8. 30 pm due to technical failure of the vehicle?

(iii) Whether at the time of accident there were valid papers of the vehicle no. UK-09 TA 0468 such as registration, permit, fitness, etc. and its driver was having valid driving license?

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

6. In oral evidence, the claimant Smt. Bikha Devi got examined herself as PW1 and PW2 Tikam Singh Chauhan. In documentary evidence, identify card, driving license, family register, death certificate, G. D. of police Station, inquest report, postmortem report, insurance cover note, registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, etc. The appellant Insurance Company neither adduced oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence.

7. After hearing the parties and the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and vide its judgment and award dated 25.11.2017, awarded compensation Rs. 2,00,000/- against the appellant. While recording findings on issue no. 1, the Tribunal after perusing the separate c