The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurance company and the determination of negligence in motor accidents claims are based on the evidence presented and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 1 ) THIS group of four miscellaneous appeals (Nos. 916, 1007, 1008 and 1016 of 1998) is proposed to be decided by common judgment since they arise out of the same award of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, dated 27. 4. 1998 arising out of the same accident.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, it may be stated that on 21. 4. 1989, Ramvati Gupta, Manirani Gupta, Bhagwan Gupta and Rajesh Dubey had gone to Maihar for obeisance to the deity. They travelled by car bearing registration no. MUK 67. It was owned by L. P. Dubey and driven by Rajesh Dubey. The accident took place near Raigawan, Police Station amdara, when the car dashed against a tree. In this accident, Bhagwan Gupta, ramvati Gupta and Rajesh Dubey died while Manirani Gupta suffered injuries. Claimants filed claim petitions, claiming compensation for the death of deceased while Manirani Gupta filed two claim petitions one on her own behalf for receiving injuries and the other for the death of her husband Bhagwan Gupta. The allegation is that the accident took place due to mechanical defect in the vehicle. Defence of the insurance company is that the driver did not possess valid driving licence for driving the vehicle. He was taking passengers, therefore, it is not responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. It is also stated that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.

( 3 ) THE owner of vehicle has stated that deceased Rajesh Dubey was in possession of driving licence (D2) and was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. As a matter of fact, this respondent has admitted the claim. The Tribunal considered the matter and held that it was not proved that the conditions of insurance policy were violated. It is also held that Rajesh Dubey was negligent in driving the vehicle. Therefore, it proceeded to dismiss the claim filed by Chhaya Mishra (substituted for Narayani Devi ). For the death of Ramvati, compensation of Rs. 25,000 has been awarded. For the death of Bhagwan Gupta, Manirani gupta has been awarded compensation of rs. 3,96,000 and for injuries sustained by her a sum of Rs. 10,000 has been awarded. Therefore, Chhaya Mishra has filed appeal for setting aside award and grant of compensation for the death of Rajesh Dubey (brother ). Similarly, Manirani Gupta has filed the appeals for enhancement of compensation for the death of her husband bhagwan Gupta and for injuries to herself. Similarly, Shail Kumari and Vijay have filed appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of Ramvati Gupta. The tribunal has ordered payment of compensation without payment of interest.

( 4 ) THE question for determination is whether finding of the Tribunal with respect to negligence on the part of Rajesh dubey is sustainable. Learned counsel for oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. contended that finding of negligence of deceased Rajesh dubey has been recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, it should not be disturbed. This submission cannot be appreciated. The question is on what evidence, this finding has been recorded by the Claims Tribunal. The defence taken by the insurance company is thoroughly vague and indefinite. It has simply said that there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy but which conditions, it has not been specifically pointed out. Except for filing the reply, no effort was made to lead evidence in support of the plea it had taken in the statement. It transpires that the Claims Tribunal arrived at this conclusion on the statement of Manirani Gupta. But on perusal of the statement of this witness, it is found that her statement does not support the finding of the Claims Tribunal. She is the only surviving member in the accident. She states that all of a sudden the vehicle got strayed and struck against roadside tree. Therefore, it cannot be said that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by deceased Rajesh dubey. No question to this effect was suggested to Manirani Gupta by the pa