NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SUSHMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenge has been laid to award dated 29. 3. 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-?III, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in MACT Petition No. 60ADJ-?II/2 of 2016, titled as Sushma and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another , whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the petition under Section 166 of the Act, having been filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 ( hereinafter 'claimants'), saddled the appellant-? insurance company with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,05,500/-? with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization thereof.

(2.) For having bird's eye view, the facts which are relevant for the adjudication of the appeal at hand are that in the intervening night of 08/09-?10-?2016, truck bearing registration No. HP-?11-?B-?0527 being driven by late Sh. Het Ram met with an accident, as a consequence of which, deceased Shravan Kumar, who at the relevant time was working as a cleaner in the truck sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. FIR bearing No. 78/2016, dated 9. 10. 2016 registered with police Station, Arki, District Solan,H. P. , reveals that on the date of alleged incident, truck in question was being driven by driver namely Sh. Het Ram in rash and negligent manner, who lost control of the vehicle near village Sainj, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H. P. ,as a consequence of which, vehicle fell into the gorge and both the driver and cleaner of the truck died on the spot on account of the multiple injuries sustained by them. Deceased Shravan Kumar was aged about 37 years at that relevant time and he was rendering his services as cleaner-?cum-? coolie in the said truck.

(3.) Appellant-?insurance company refuted the aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants on the ground that at the time accident driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured.