JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since common question of law and facts arises in all the three appeals, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Appeal From Order No.88 of 2008 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 05.12.2007, passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.64 of 2007, Smt. Kamla Devi and others Vs. Amtuls Public School and another, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and award, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act") has been allowed and respondent no. 5, insurance company has been directed pay a compensation of Rs. 5,32,000/- to the respondent nos.1 to 4 (the claimants). The respondent no.5, insurance company has also been given the rights to recover this amount from the appellant.

3. In appeal From Order No.89 of 2008, challenge is made to the judgment and award dated 05.12.2007, passed in passed in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 63 of 2007, Smt. Govindi Devi and others Vs. Amtuls Public School and another, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and award, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act has been allowed and respondent no. 8, insurance company has been directed to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 6,53,000/- to the respondent nos.1 to 7 (the claimants). The respondent no.8, insurance company has also been given the rights to recover this amount from the appellant.

4. In appeal From Order No.90 of 2008, challenge is made to the judgment and award dated 05.12.2007, passed in passed in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No.65 of 2007, Smt. Leela Sen and others Vs. Amtuls Public School and another, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and award, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act has been allowed and respondent no.7, insurance company has been directed to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 6,66,000/- to the respondent nos.1 to 6 (the claimants). The respondent no.7, insurance company has also been given the rights to recover this amount from the appellant.

5. All these appeals have been filed on the ground that the vehicle was not being run against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. A vehicle bearing registration no. UA-04 B-5795 (for short, “the vehicle") was being driven by deceased Rajesh M. Singh on 25.03.2007 at 11:00 PM, when it met with an accident, due to which the driver & some of the passengers died. All the three claim petition, in which the impugned judgments and awards have been passed, were preferred by the claimants (dependents of the deceased) seeking compensation under the Act. The appellant is owner of the vehicle.

8. The appellant, owner of the vehicle as well as the respondent Insurance Company filed their objections. Issues were framed in all the three claim petitions. Issue no.4 in all the three petitions is as hereunder:-

“Whether the vehicle bearing Registration No. UA04B 5795 was insured with the respondent Insurance Company and it was being run in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy?"

9. On this issue, the Tribunal recorded the finding that the driver of the vehicle, Rajesh M. Singh, had a valid driving licence to drive private motor car, but he did not possess a driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle. On the basis of this finding, the Tribunal concluded that the vehicle was not being driven as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

10. While recording the finding on compensation, in all the three petitions, the Tribunal discussed the question of liability as to who can be held liable to pay the compensation. While discussing this aspect, the Tribunal noted that the vehicle was registered as a goods vehicle and the deceased were gratuitous passengers in the vehicle, the