- (1.) BY way of this appeal under Sec­tion 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants-claimants have chal­lenged the judgment and award dated 05-08-2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in M.A.C.C. No. 17/2005, Smt. Pushpa Devi and another versus Smt. Sushma Joshi and another.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as nar­rated in the claim petition, are that on 18-9-2004 claimants' son- Suresh Singh was traveling in vehicle bearing No. U.P. 07C-0234 and on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of said vehi­cle, said vehicle met with an accident near Hulanakhal, in which Suresh Kumar died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of his death and he had been working as Patwari and was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,655/- per month. Opposite party no. 1- Smt. Sushma Devi, owner of vehicle, filed her written statement denying some of the contents of want of knowledge, but ad­mitted the factum of accident of vehicle No. U.P. 07C-0234 on 18-9-2004. It was also been state that his vehicle was being plied by an expert and authorized driver-Laxman Singh. The accident had taken place on account of sudden tech­nical fault in the accident, in which Rajesh Joshi, husband of opposite party no. 1, also died. It has further been stated that at the time of accident all the papers of vehicle in question were valid and driver was holding valid driving li­cence. It has also been stated that vehi­cle was comprehensively insured with opposite party no.2 and therefore liability to pay the compensation is of oppo­site party no. 2.
(3.) OPPOSITE party no.2- insurance company filed its written statement de­nying the. contents of the claim petition and stated that claimants were not dependents on deceased, therefore they are not entitled to get the compensation. It has also been stated that at the time of accident driver of vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, therefore claim petition is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The vehicle in question was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy.;