JUDGMENT :

This is a claimants’ Appeal from Order, where the dependents of the deceased employee, had put a challenge to the impugned award which has been rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, on 25th June, 2013 in MACP Case No.60 of 2010, “Baldev Singh and others Vs. Shri Yashwant Singh & another”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants’, herein, by invoking the provisions contained under section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, had instituted a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal, on 5th September 2010, and as per the factual backdrop pleaded in the claim petition, it was contended, that the deceased-Deepak Singh, who was engaged as a driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.UP06 3078 (hereinafter to be called as a “vehicle”). The deceased was an employee of the owner of the vehicle, who was impleaded as the opposite party no.1, to the claim petition.

3. The claimants in the claim petition had come up with a case that on the date of the accident i.e. 10th August 2010, the deceased, who was 26 years of age, according to his registered date of birth being 10th August 1984, and as per the date of birth depicted in other public documents, he was holding a valid driving licence, and thus they contended that on the date of the accident, the deceased since he was being paid a salary of Rs.6000/- per month, with the additional allowance of Rs.50/- per day. The total amount of income, which was allegedly accruing to the deceased was assessed by the claimants, in their claim petition, to be approximately Rs.7500/- per month.

4. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal while taking cognizance to the proceedings had issued notices to the respondents, and the owner of the vehicle i.e. opposite party no.1-Yashwant Singh, who had filed his written statement being paper No.13 (kha) on 20th June 2011, wherein, in the written statement thus filed by him i.e. in paragraph No.11, the owner of the vehicle had taken a stand that the wages which was then being paid to the driver of the vehicle was Rs.3500/- per month, with an additional allowances of Rs.50/- per day in order to meet the daily expenses, of the driver. Apart from it, in paragraph No.13, of the written statement, it was pleaded by the opposite party no.1, i.e. the owner of the vehicle, that on the date of the accident i.e.10th August 2010, the vehicle was being driven under valid documents, and an insurance cover, as provided under the terms of the insurance policy which had been issued by the opposite party No.2, i.e. Insurance Policy No.462202/31/09/67000031200, which was valid for the period from 13th January 2010 to 12th January 2011.

5. The Insurance Company had filed its independent written statement, being paper No.16 kha. In the written statement, thus filed though the factum of accident had been accepted, but the pleading pertaining to the stand taken by the owner of the vehicle in the written statement, that the vehicle was being driven at the relevant date as per the terms of the policy, was specifically denied by the insurance company in their written statement, and particularly, in paragraph No.5, of their written statement, a specific stand was taken by the insurance company, that on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence, and hence the liability, if any, was required to be settled, it ought not to be borne by the insurance company, in view of the provisions contained under Section 170; to be read with Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

6. The owner of the vehicle appeared in the witness box, and has submitted his affidavit in examination-in-chief being paper No.23kha, wherein, in paragraph No.5, he has taken just the converse stand of what was pleaded by him in the written statement, and in the affidavit thus submitted by the owner of the vehicle, he has submitted that the driver was being paid wages of Rs.6000/- per month with an additional expense