J U D G M E N T

By way of instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ‘Act’), challenge has been laid to award dated 30.07.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Claim Petition No.37/2004, titled K.K. Kapoor vs. Rajeev Sood and others, whereby claim petition having been filed by respondent No.1/ claimant (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) under Section 166 of the Act, praying therein for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, came to be allowed and claimant was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,14,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of award amount.

2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that on 02.08.2001 the claimant/respondent No.1 was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter bearing No.HID-2547 being driven by respondent No.5, Narender Bhardwaj, and when they reached near Bemloe, at about 9:00 p.m., one car bearing registration No. DL- 3CA-1277 being driven by respondent No.3,Vijay Kumar, rashly and negligently came from behind and hit the scooter, as a result of which, the claimant fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries and later on he was taken to the hospital. He was admitted at IGMC Shimla w.e.f 02.08.2001 to 21.09.2001 and thereafter, he remained as an outdoor patient under treatment. He was unable to move and walk and spent about Rs.60,000/- on his treatment, out of which, a sum of Rs. 46,304/- was re-reimbursed to him by the department as he was working as Assistant Director, I.C.D.P and was posted at Ghanahatti, District Shimla. His salary at the time of accident was Rs.24,300/- and he had paid Rs.57,182/- as tax. Claimant claimed a sum of Rs.6,90,955/- as compensation and due to the accident, he has become permanently disabled and dependent upon others.

3. The aforesaid claim put-forth by claimant/respondent No.1, came to be resisted by the respondents by way of filing reply, wherein, respondent No.2, Rajeev Sood, stated that he was not owner of the car bearing registration No.DL-3CA-1277 and the aforesaid vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3. In the reply filed by respondent No.3, it has been stated that claimant was a pillion rider and was sitting on scooter bearing registration No.HID-2547 of respondent No.5, Narender Bhardwaj. He denied that the car was being driven by him in a rash and negligent manner and the scooter was hit by the said vehicle. He further stated that when he alongwith respondent No.2 reached Bemloe, claimant and one other person were crying for help and thereafter they took them to the hospital for treatment.

4. In the reply filed by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company, it has been claimed that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. However, the appellant denied that said car was involved in the alleged accident and claimant had sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3.

5. Respondent No.5-Narender Bhardwaj, in his reply, stated that he had also suffered injuries on account of the accident and remained admitted in the hospital.

6. Respondent No.6-United Insurance Company Ltd., also had taken preliminary objections that the driver of the scooter bearing registration No.HID-2547 was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and, as such, is not liable to indemnify the claim and in case, it is proved that the scooter was involved in the accident, in such eventuality, the pillion rider may not be covered under the Insurance Policy.

7. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal below, vide order dated

17.06.2