(1.) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensation awarded for the death of one Dalip Singh in an accident of car No. UPT-6397, which was insured with the appellant for third party risk, has been ordered to be paid by it (the appellant).
(2.) Relevant facts may be summed up first. Deceased Dalip Singh, aged 25 years, along-with his father respondent Chet Ram, was travelling by car No. UPT-6397, owned by respondent Manish Kumar, when it met with an accident resulting in the death of Dalip Singh as also the driver of the car. In the petition it was alleged that the deceased and his father Chet Ram had paid fare for travelling by the car. In the FIR also, which is duly proved and which had been lodged by Chet Ram, respondent (father of the deceased), it was stated that the car had been engaged as taxi by respondent Chet Ram. The accident was alleged to have taken place due to rash driving of the car by its driver. The owner was also reported to be travelling the car, when the accident took place, in the FIR that was lodged with the police.
(3.) The owner of the car respondent Manish Kumar did not put in appearance despite service. So he was proceeded against ex parte. The present appellant contested the claim, filed by the widow, the children and the father of the deceased. Inter alia, it was stated that the deceased was traveling by the car as a paid passenger and this was in violation of one of the conditions in the policy. It was also stated that the insurance policy in respect of the car had been purchased in the name of Shah Alam, a registered owner of the car, but in fact the car, at the time of the accident, belonged to Manish Kumar, as he had purchased it from Shah Alam and for this reason also the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. It was denied that the car was being driven in a rash or negligent manner and the dependents of the deceased were entitled to any compensation.