Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - (1.) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.3') for quashing and setting aside the impugned award, dated 27.4.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P, in Claim Petition No.10-S/2 of 2011.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 12.6.2011, respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') son Geeta Nand alias Vijay Thakur, was travelling in a vehicle (Honda City) bearing registration No.DL-3CAK8823 from Hotel Holiday Village Katrain to Manali, which was being driven by respondent No.2, when the said vehicle reached near Rishi Guest House, Tehsil Manali, the said vehicle went out of the road and fell into the river and Geeta Nand alias Vijay Thakur drown in the river. The said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Geeta Nand alias Vijay Thakur, was hale and hearty person and was employed in Hotel Holiday Village Katrain in Tehsil and District Kullu and was an agriculturist and horticulturist. Deceased Geeta Nand was earning Rs.12,000/- per month from selling of apple plants and doing cutting, pruning, packaging of apple boxes. The deceased also used to grow apple nursery and used to sell apple plants and was earning rupees 70 to 80 thousand per annum. The deceased was the only earning member in the family and petitioners were totally dependent on the income of the deceased. The car in question was owned by respondent No.1, which was duly insured with respondent No.3.
(3.) In joint reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the vehicle in question was duly insured with respondent No.3. There was no rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question on the part of respondent No.2 and they are not liable to pay compensation. In reply filed by respondent No.3 submitted that the deceased was travelling, as gratuitous passenger/unauthorized passenger in the vehicle in question at the time of accident, which was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The vehicle in question was a private car, which was not meant to carry passengers. The vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no valid and effective driving licence with driver of the vehicle in question.;