NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PROMILA PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment shall decide the above noted crossappeals filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[The Act] by the parties assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dtd. 17/12/2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi[Tribunal] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 58/2018[Claim petition], whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants/parents of the deceased and fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant/insurance company. For convenience, MAC.APP. 265/2019 shall be the lead case.

(2.) Briefly stated, it was the case of the claimants that on 11/10/1997, their son deceased/Vikas Prabhakar, along with his two nephews, their wives and a six months old baby, were travelling from Delhi to Punjab in a Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-9C-1769, driven by his cousin Anurag Kalia. Upon reaching near Kurukshetra, the car stopped behind a truck bearing registration No. HR-03-6917 ('hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle') due to a traffic jam. Suddenly, the offending vehicle/bus, driven by Satender Singh/respondent No. 2, approached from behind in a rash and negligent manner, colliding with the car's rear side. Consequently, the deceased and some other occupants sustained multiple injuries, with the deceased and the baby suffering fatal skull injuries resulting in their immediate demise. Initially, S.K. Prabhakar, the deceased's father and one of the two claimants before the learned Tribunal, filed the claim petition on 29/7/1999 and the owner/Gulbir Singh, driver[Sec. 2(9) of MV Act: driver includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle.] /Satender Singh and the insurance company were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The brother and sister of the deceased were impleaded as respondents No. 4 and 5.

(3.) Notice was issued to all the respondents, however, respondent No.2, along with respondents No. 4 to 6 were not present despite notice. Consequently, the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dtd. 31/10/2003. Even respondent No. 1, who was served through publication, did not attend and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dtd. 14/7/2004. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were again proceeded ex-parte on 7/3/2006. Evidently, only respondent No.3/insurance company, contested the inquiry by filing its written submissions wherein they acknowledged that the offending bus was insured with them under the name of one Madan Kumar, on the date of the accident. However, they alleged that the said bus was being driven without a valid Driving Licence[Sec. 2(10) -driving licence? means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.] (DL), thus absolving them from liability to pay compensation.