Under MV Act Section 163A, negligence need not be proved in compensation claims, but tribunals must apply judicial mind to all issues like driver's license validity before fastening liability.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal from order has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 07.12.2012, passed by learned Third Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T., Haridwar, in M.A.C.P. Case No.94 of 2009 Vijay Chauhan and Ors. Vs. Inder Singh and Ors. , whereby, the said claim petition was allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- as compensation @9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e.19.05.2006, against the appellant to be paid within 30 days from the date of passing of the order i.e.07.12.2012.

2. The brief facts of case are that on 01.08.2008 at about 06.30 a.m., deceased and respondents-claimants were coming from Delhi to Roorkee in their vehicle No.UA 08 D-9253, near village Bhuraheri, District Muzaffarnagar, the driver of trolley No.H.R. 55H-7071, which was moving ahead the vehicle of deceased, suddenly applied the break. Due to the sudden break, the husband of deceased tried hard to control the vehicle but could not control and collided with the trolley, due to which they sustained serious injuries and resulted in the death of Smt. Anju Chauhan on the spot.

3. The first information report of the accident was registered at Thana Purkaji, District Muzaffarnagar as G.D. No.14 of 2008. The wife of the respondent No.1 was a healthy woman and used to teach tution at home and in the remaining time, used to help her husband in shop saraf, from which she used to earn Rs.3300/- per month. Thus, they had requested for compensation of Rs.20,20,000/- along with the interest of 12% from the appellant-Insurance Company, owner of the vehicle and driver jointly and separately.

4. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, in its written statement submitted that respondents-claimants filed the claim petition with the intention of earning illegal income by making highly inflated claims. They also submitted that no accident was caused by the vehicle No.H.R. 55H-7071 on 01.08.2008. It is further submitted that no FIR was registered at the concerned police station regarding the alleged incident. Respondent No.1 (husband of deceased) was driving his car at high speed and recklessly and drove his car into the said vehicle parking on the roadside, which fact was registered in General Diary No.14 dated 01.08.2008 of Purkaji Police Station. Respondent No.6- driver was holding a valid driving license and other documents. Thus, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not entitled to get any claim from them.

5. Appellant-Insurance Company in its written statement also denied the averment made in the claim petition and submitted that it is not admitted that the deceased-Anju Chauhan had died in the alleged accident and further it is also not admitted that the age of deceased was 40 years and her monthly income was Rs.3300/-. It is further submitted that at the time of alleged accident, owner of the vehicle did not have valid documents i.e. Registration Fitness, Permit etc. and the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license, thus, the appellant is not entitled to pay any claim. He also submitted that the compensation demanded by respondents-claimants in claim suit is grossly inflated and without any reasonable basis, which they are not entitled to get.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as 6 issues on the basis of pleading of the parties, which are reproduced as below:

(1) Whether on 01.08.2008 at about 06:30 a.m., place Delhi Roorkee, in Village Buraheri, District Muzaffarnagar, the driver of Vehicle No.H.R.-55H-7071 suddenly