The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of liability under the Motor Vehicle Act and the Workmen Compensation Act based on driving license, permit conditions, and insurance policy terms.

JUDGMENT :

These are the two Appeals from Order.

2. The Appeal from Order No.400 of 2010, which has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.UA07T 6690, is under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, and the Appeal from Order No.193 of 2011, has been preferred by the National Insurance Company, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923. However, since in both the matters, they are emanating from a same set of incident and involves common facts, hence for the purposes of brevity, they are been decided together.

3. The matter was heard at length yesterday, and it was placed today for the dictation of judgment.

4. The brief facts, which engage consideration in the present cases are that the challenge as given in the Appeal from Orders, is to the award dated 29th September 2010, which was rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in MACP No.33 of 2009, “Smt. Beena & others Vs. Neelkanth & others”. Factually it chanced so, that an accident had occurred on 30th May, 2009, whereby one late Mr. Parvesh Prasad, who was the husband of the claimant No.1, and the father of the claimant No.2, and the son of claimant Nos.3 and 4, who at the relevant time was traveling in the Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.UA07T-6690, it was alleged that on account of a rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Neeraj Chamoli, the vehicle has met with an accident resulting into the death of late Mr.Parvesh Prasad Chamoli. It was contended that the deceased was travelling from Bhagirathi Puram to his Village Pangarkhal, via Patta motor road, at the time when the accident chanced on 30th May 2009 at 9:00 p.m. and the deceased is said to be and was also found to be of 24 years of age on the date of the accident.

5. The claimants have come up with a case in the claim petition; that the deceased was engaged as a motor mechanic, and was also having a private business owing to his aforesaid engagements, he used to earn about Rs.8,000/- per month, and thus they have assessed their claim of Rupees Ten Lakh, to be awarded to them. In the claim petition, the notices were issued, the opposite party No.1, i.e. the owner of the vehicle filed his written statement being paper No.16 (kha), wherein he admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle; he admitted the fact that the accident did chanced on 30th May, 2009, but he submitted that the accident has chanced on account of a mechanical fault, which has occurred in the vehicle in question, due to which the Driver of the vehicle lost his control over it, and which fell into a ditch, resulting into the death of the Driver as well as of Mr. Parvesh Prasad, the husband of the claimant. Both of them died on the spot.

6. The Insurance Company, the appellant of AO No.193 of 2011, too filed the written statement being paper No.22 (kha), and the Insurance Company have admitted the fact, that the offending vehicle was insured with them, but they made endeavour to carve out an exception to disown their liability, to the probable compensation which could be levied on the determination, to be made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, on the ground that the Driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, didn’t had a valid licence, and apart from that, the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms of the insurance policy and the conditions given, therein, and the vehicle didn’t had a valid permit and fitness certificate, which was one of the pre-conditions provided under the insurance policy conditions in order to harness a liability on the Insurance Company for the remittance of any probable compensation to be determined by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. On the exchange of the pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had formulated the following issues in MACP Case No.33 of 2009, which are extracted hereunder:-

^^5- mHk; i{kks ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEu o