J U D G M E N T

The instant appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been maintained by the appellant/Insurance Company (hereinafter Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

referred to as the 8Insurance Company9) against the respondents/claimants/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 8petitioners9) for quashing and setting aside impugned award, dated 10.08.2018, passed in MAC Petition No. 10-T/2 of 2014 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- CBI, H.P. (Camp at Theog), whereby petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been allowed and the appellant has been held liable for the compensation.

2. As per the appellant, the impugned award passed by the learned Court below is against the facts, which have come on record, without application of mind and without considering the question of maintainability of the appeal, as the driver was not negligent in driving the vehicle.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 12.05.2013, the petitioner was traveling in the vehicle, bearing registration No. HP13-2140 (Santro Car), and Smt. Sunita boarded the same from Kandaghat to Rohru. It has been averred that the aforesaid vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and could not be controlled by the driver, so the same fell down into deep gorge for at about 300 meters at a place called Jais ghati. At the time of accident, the deceased sustained various multiple injuries and was brought to Civil Hospital Theog from the spot for treatment, where he had died. It has been stated that Smt. Sunita was getting salary of Rs. 26,297/- per month and total expenditure incurred upon her treatment/medical examination including cremation and funeral etc was Rs. 25,000/-.

4. It has further been averred that the petitioner had gone through various surgeries/operations and she is advised routine checkup. The injured is unable to perform her day- to-day work and totally dependent upon her family. Till today, the injured incurred expenditure of about Rs. 5,00,000/- on attendant, medicine, medical tests and traveling etc. and she requires huge amount for her treatment.

5. Respondent No. 1, by filing reply to the petition, contested the petition. In reply, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts were taken. On merits, it is averred that respondent No.2 did not possess any valid and effective driving license to drive the car and thus he committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that deceased was serving as JBT teacher at Tundal and was earning Rs. 26,297/- per month and incurred expenditure of Rs. 25,000/- on treatment, funeral expensed etc. It is also submitted that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of respondent No.2, but after manipulating the facts, a false FIR has been registered against respondent No.2 with an intention to fasten the liability upon the respondent. It is denied that the deceased was earning and the petitioner was solely dependent upon the earning of deceased, since no document qua the same has been supplied to the respondent.

6. It is admitted that the accident took place at Jais Ghati on 12.5.2013 and the mother of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Sunita was sitting in the aforesaid vehicle, which she boarded from Kandaghat to Rohru, the mother of the petitioner sustained multiple injuries in the accident and died on the spot and her postmortem was conducted in Civil Hospital Theog. It is submitted that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 i.e. Bharti Axa General Insurance. As per the report given by Motor Mechanic, Sh. Gyan Chand Kenthla, after examining the vehicle, the accident took place due to sudden break failure or skidding on the spot.

7. The learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 18.01.2017 :-

“1. Whether the petitioner being legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Sunita are entitled for compensation amount alo