Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
1. Both these appeals are outcome of award, dated 1st September, 2005, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby and whereunder fourteen claim petitions came to be awarded in favour of the victims of a traffic accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver of the offending tractor and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award with a right to recover the same from the appellant-owner-insured (for short "the impugned award"). Keeping in view the fact that both these appeals are outcome of one accident and single award, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment.
Brief facts:
2. The claimants have filed fourteen claim petitions for grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions, on the ground that Shri Haria @ Parveen, driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. tractor, bearing registration No. HP-28-1452, had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on 11th September, 2001, at about 4.15 p.m. on Marhi-Sandhol road at Upper Balh, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, and cavsed the accident, in which two children died and some sustained injuries.
3. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer contested the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.
4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 12th August, 2003:
"1. Whether the petitioners suffered injuries as a result of rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 2? -- OPP
Whether the deceased died as a result of rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 2? -- OPP
2. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved, to what amount the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents? -- OPP
3. Whether respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence as alleged? If so, its effect? -- OPR-3
4. Whether the vehicle was being driven in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, its effect? -- OPR-3
5. Whether the injured/deceased was a gratuitous passenger as alleged? If so, its effect? -- OPR-3
6. Relief."
5. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, saddled the appellant-owner-insured with liability on the ground that he has committed wilful breach and the driver, who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time, was not having the licence. The insurer was asked to first satisfy the award and to recover the same from the owner-insured.
6. The claimants, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.
7. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 300 of 2006 and FAO No. 432 of 2006 so far it relates only to Claim Petition No. 106 of 2001, titled as Smt. Indira Devi v. Shri Sunt Ram and Others, and Claim Petition No. 117 of 2001, titled as Smt. Bimla Devi v. Shri Sant Ram and Others, respectively, on the grounds taken in the respective memo of appeals.
8. I deem it proper to record herein that the appellant-owner- insured has satisfied the impugned award so far it relates to other twelve claim petitions and has not questioned the same on any ground. Learned Counsel for the appellant-owner-insured was asked to justify the maintainability of these appeals.
9. He argued that the amount of compensation awarded in those twelve claim petitions was less than the statutory amount of appeal, no appeal can be filed against such awards in terms of mandate of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act").
10. The argument is though attractive but devoid of any force for the simple reason that the appellant-owner-insured has accepted the liability and satisfied the award in twelve claim petitions, could have questioned the same by the medium of writ petition if other alternative remedy was not available to him.
11. Thus, the appellant-owner-insured is caught by law of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver.
12. The appellant-owner-insured has also not carved out a case for interference for the following reasons:
"The defence put forth by the appellant-owner-insured before the Tribunal was that he had not entrusted the offending vehicle to driver-Haria @ Parveen and actually, driver-Rajesh Kumar was engaged by him, who had parked the offending vehicle and the keys were with the labourer, which were snatched, rather stolen away, by Shri Haria @ Parveen, driven the offending vehicle without authority and caused the accident."
13. The appellant-owner-insured has failed to prove the said defence.
14. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant-owner-insured was asked whether any FIR was lodged about the accident. He replied that the FIR was lodged, investigation was conducted and final report was presented only against Shri Haria alias Parveen.
15. The said argument is misplaced and not correct because final report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") was presented against Shri Haria @ Parveen and the appellant-owner-insured.
16. The appellant-owner-insured has not led any evidence to the effect that Shri Haria @ Parveen had driven the offending vehicle without his approval and has also not explained how the students were traveling in the said offending vehicle at the relevant point of time.
17. Having said so, the appellant-owner-insured has failed to prove that Shri Haria @ Parveen was driving the offending vehicle unauthorizedly.
18. The Tribunal has rightly scanned the evidence and made the findings, which are factually and legally correct. It appears that the appellant-owner-insured has tried to escape the liability and the defence taken is an afterthought. He is caught by his conduct, as discussed hereinabove.
19. Granting of compensation and other aspects are not in dispute. The appellant-owner-insured has not questioned the impugned award on any other ground.
20. It is also beaten law of land that the Tribunal has to conduct the trial of the claim petition and determine the same by summary procedure. All the provisions of Civil Procedure Code (for short "CPC") and the Evidence Act are not applicable in terms of Section 169 of the M.V. Act. Only some provisions of CPC are applicable, which are contained in Section 169 of the M.V. Act and the Motor Vehicles Rules.
21. Thus, the Tribunal has, prima facie, made the findings. If, at all, the appellant-owner-insured was aggrieved, he had so many remedies, which he has not availed.
22. The Tribunal, after taking note of the fact that the claimants are the victims of the motor vehicular accident and are third parties, has rightly asked the insurer to satisfy the award at the first instance and granted the right of recovery.
23. Having said so, the appellant-owner-insured has failed to carve out a case for interference and the impugned award needs to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and both the appeals are dismissed.
24. The awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal''s file and on the file of connected appeal.
