In motor accident claims, High Court remands to Tribunal for fresh adjudication where insurance coverage, statutory documents validity, and compensation quantum inadequately addressed, allowing additional evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

These two appeals from order, namely A.O. No. 261 of 2022 and A.O. No. 241 of 2023, arise out of the common judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 275 of 2019. The Appeal from Order No. 261 of 2022 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, as the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,18,000/- only, which according to the claimants is inadequate. /-. A.O. No. 241 of 2023 has been filed by the owner of the offending bus, challenging not only the judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 but also the order dated 30.09.2022, whereby the review application filed by him was rejected by the learned Tribunal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 17.06.2016 at about 2:00 p.m., the deceased was travelling in his Jeep bearing registration No. HR-08B-4593, when the deceased reached near Samiya Lake City, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, a bus bearing registration No. UA-04B-2628 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and violently collided with the jeep. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto. It was pleaded that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family, and the claimants, therefore, filed a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. The driver and owner of the offending bus filed a joint written statement denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It was asserted that the bus was being driven at a moderate speed; that, the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence; that, the vehicle had valid registration, permit and insurance on the date of accident; and in case of award of compensation, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the same.

4. The Insurance Company (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), in its written statement, denied its liability on the grounds that no intimation under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was given; that, on the date of accident, the offending vehicle had no valid permit or statutory documents; that, the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether on 17.06.2016 at about 2:00 p.m., near Samiya Lake City on Rudrapur–Gadarpur Road, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. UA-04B-2628, resulting in the death of the deceased? If so, its effect?

ii) Whether on the date, time and place of the accident, the driver of the bus was holding a valid driving licence and whether the owner possessed valid registration certificate, permit and insurance policy? If so, what would be its effect?

iii) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from which opposite party?

6. On behalf of the claimants, documentary evidence was filed, including Chik FIR and FIR, Charge- sheet, Site plan, Post-mortem report of the deceased, Driving licence of the deceased, Registration certificate, permit and pollution certificate of the offending vehicle, Aadhaar cards of the claimants.

7. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. The claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.7,18,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, holding that the Insurance Company was not liable, and directed the owner and driver