Appellant-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 01.06.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in M.A.C. Petition No.0000015 of 2014, titled as ‘Sharda Devi & Another versus Praveen Chhikara & Others’.

By way of award dated 01.06.2016, the learned MACT has allowed the claim petition, filed by respondent No.1 and 2, by awarding a sum of Rs.11,45,244/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the amount, by fastening the ultimate liability to pay the compensation amount upon the appellant-insurer.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned MACT.

Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, as emerge from the record, may be summed up, as under:-

4.1. Petitioners, being widow and son of Shri Krishan Singh, have filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. DL-10CG-0229 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest Krishan Singh died in a road side accident, having taken place at Jahu, on 08.05.2013, at about 5.20 a.m., involving the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner.

4.2. According to the petitioners, Krishan Singh, at the time of accident was 53 years of age and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, as according to the petitioners, he was contractor, agriculturist, horticulturist and commission agent.

4.3. The information of the accident was given to the police of Police Station Rampur Bushehr, where FIR No. 80/13 dated 08.05.2013, was registered. Since the accident in question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle, as such the petitioners have sought the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum.

When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing separate replies. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their joint reply, by taking the plea that respondent No.2 was not negligent, in the accident, in question, however, the registration of the FIR has not been disputed. The other contents have mainly been denied for want of knowledge.

Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded by respondents No.1 and 2 that the accident, in question, had taken place due to the reason that respondent No.2, had tried to save a stray cow, who, all of a sudden, came in front of the offending vehicle.

Insurance-Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; the petitioners have no locus standi to file the claim petition; the offending vehicle is being permitted to ply, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence; and the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners, in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2.

On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied and a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

From the pleadings of the parties, the learned MACT has framed the following issues, vide order dated 09.09.2015:

1. Whether Sh. Krishan Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL-10CG-0299 (Renault Duster), being driven by respondent No.2? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation