A driver with an LMV license can legally operate transport vehicles under 7,500 kg. Furthermore, negligence in motor accident claims is determined by the preponderance of probability, meaning police cancellation reports in criminal proceedings do not automatically exonerate the driver from liability.

Whether approved for reporting? yes

For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Virender Singh, Judge :

1. Appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 07.05.2018, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in R.B.T. No.104-R/2 of 2016, titled as Master Aarav and another versus Joginder Singh & another.

2. By way of award dated 07.05.2018, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and awarded a sum of Rs.19,35,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation along with interest has been fastened upon the Insurance Company (appellant).

Brief Facts:

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

4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:-

4.1. The petitioners-claimants, being minor son and mother-in-law of deceased Lakesh had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of M.V. Act, before the learned Tribunal. They have sought the compensation on account of death of Lakesh, in a road side accident, involving Vehicle No.HP01K-5100 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned and driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2.

4.2. According to them, Lakesh, at the time of her death, was 29 years old and she was earning Rs.20,000/-per month, as she was working as housewife and also used to do agriculture and horticulture work. The accident had taken place on 28.05.2015 at about 7:00 PM, at Kotgali near village Kotlu.

4.3. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded that the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as he drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and could not control the same, due to which, the offending vehicle went off the road and had fallen into deep gorge. Lakesh died on the spot. Postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted by the Medical Officer, CHC, Anni District Kullu H.P.

4.4. The matter was also reported to the police of Police Station, Karsog, where, FIR No.75 of 2015, dated 29.05.2015 has been registered.

4.5. According to the claimants, Lakesh was housewife and also used to do agriculture and horticulture work and as such, she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

4.6. The claimants have also pleaded about their bright past and bleak future.

4.7. Since the accident in question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as such, it has been prayed that the amount of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/, along with interest @9% be awarded to them, against the respondents.

Stand of the respondents before the learned Tribunal

5. When, put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents.

5.1. Respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver, has filed reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable. According to him, he was neither rash, nor, negligent, however, the accident had taken place due to sudden mechanical defects, in the offending vehicle. In this regard, respondent No.1, has relied upon the cancellation report submitted, by the police of Police Station Karsog, before the Court of l