J U D G M E N T

1. This judgment shall decide the present appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company under Section 1731 of the Motor Vehicle Act 19882, assailing the Impugned judgment-cum-order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal3, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, in Dharam Pal & Ors. v. 1 173. Appeals. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court, unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent. of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:

Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than [one lakh] rupees.

2 MV Act 3 MACT Rohitash & Ors. bearing MACP No. 163/2017, thereby allowing the claim of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the claimants (Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) that on 19.06.2017, the deceased Ajay Kumar aged 22 years, was travelling on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ- 40-SC-9121, when at the Mega Highway Village, Maharajpura, he was hit by the offending vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. RJ- 23-G-3338. The offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No. 4. Resultantly, the victim boy sustained multiple total injuries and died on the spot. An FIR bearing No. 0355 of 2017 dated 20.06.2017 was registered at P.S. Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan – 301411. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, leaving behind his parents and younger sister as his dependants. As a result, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE MACT AND IMPUGNED

ORDER:

3. During the course of proceedings before the learned MACT, it was established that the truck involved in the accident was evidently insured with the appellant/insurance company. There was no issue as regards the driver/respondent No. 4, who was having a valid driving license at the time of the accident. However, respondent No. 5/owner of the offending vehicle, deposed before the learned MACT that he sold the offending vehicle to Sh. Imran on 03.10.2016, and at the time of the accident, the offending truck was in possession of Bhawani Singh, who was then the owner of the offending truck and that the intimation of the sale was sent to the appellant. The appellant had contended that no evidence of the sale has been brought on record, and no intimation of the sale had been received by them or by the concerned officer of the Regional Transport Office4 for amending the name of the ownership.

4. The appellant before the learned MACT argued that the offending vehicle did not possess a fitness certificate at the time of the accident, thereby violating the terms of the insurance policy and the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. Sh. Manjeet Singh, an Independent Investigator on behalf of the appellant/insurance company, deposed on 11.10.2017 as R3W1 and as per his investigation report, the fitness certificate of the insured vehicle was issued from 15.02.2016 to 14.02.2017 and from 11.07.2017 to 10.07.2018, and therefore, it was brought to the fore that the fitness certificate was not valid on the date of the accident.

5. The learned MACT based on the pleadings of the parties, on

30.08.2017, framed the following issues: -

“Issue No. 1 Whether Ajay Kumar @ Pintu sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 19.06.2017 due to rash and negligent