JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. All these three appeals are directed against the award, dated 6th August, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereby three claim petitions, titled as Sh. Rabhal Ram versus Ram Dayal & others, being Claim Petition No. 15/2002, 14/2005; Sh. Krishan Ram versus Ram Dayal & others, being Claim Petition No. 13/2002, 9/2005; and Sh. Hem Raj versus Ram Dayal & others, being Claim Petition No. 14/2002, 18/2005 came to be determined and compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,52,000/-, Rs. 2,60,605/- and Rs. 2,57,746/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of the filing of the claim petitions till deposition of the awarded amount came to be granted in favour of the claimants in the respective claim petitions and the appellant-insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited came to be saddled with liability to satisfy the award in all the three claim petitions (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeals. Therefore, I deem it proper to dispose of all these three appeals by a common judgment. Brief facts: 2. Claimant-Rabhal Ram filed Claim Petition No. 15/2002, 14/2005 for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on the ground that he became the victim of motor vehicular accident, which was caused on 10th October, 2001, near Village Kangoo while going from Jarol to Dehar, at about 9.15 A.M., by the composite negligence of the drivers, namely Shri Prakash Chand and Shri Labh Singh, of two vehicles, i.e. jeep bearing registration No. HP-31-3671 and truck bearing registration No. HP-23-5110, respectively, while driving the said offending vehicles rashly and negligently. It is further contended that he (Shri Rabhal Ram) alongwith two other persons, namely Shri Krishan Ram and Shri Hem Raj, was sitting in the jeep and all the three persons sustained injuries in the said accident. 3. Claimant-Krishan Ram filed Claim Petition No. 13/2002, 9/2005, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per the break-ups and the details given in the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 4. Claimant-Hem Raj filed Claim Petition No. 14/2002, 18/2005 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 3. Claimant-Krishan Ram filed Claim Petition No. 13/2002, 9/2005, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per the break-ups and the details given in the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 4. Claimant-Hem Raj filed Claim Petition No. 14/2002, 18/2005 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident as per the break-ups and the details given in the claim petition. 5. The driver of the offending truck had not appeared before the Tribunal and was set ex-parte vide order, dated 22nd April, 2002, in all the three claim petitions. 6. All other respondents in the claim petitions resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. Issues were framed on 27th August, 2004, in all the three claim petitions, though separately, but the issues are same. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the issues framed in Claim Petition No. 15/2002, 14/2005 herein: “1. Whether the accident caused by composite negligence of the drivers of the vehicles owned by respondents Nos. 1 and 3? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to amount of compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the drivers of the vehicles were not holding a valid and effective driving licences? OPR 4. Whether there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy owned by respondent Nos. 1 & 3? OPR-5 5. Relief.” 8. It appears that the Tribunal, while noticing that all the three claim petitions were outcome of the same vehicular accident and the facts were similar, except the amount of compensation sought, clubbed all the three claim petitions. 9. Claimant-Rabhal Ram has examined Dr. Deepak Malhotra, HHC Birbal Singh, Shri Krishan Gopal, Dr. N.K. Prasher, Shri Hari Man, Shri Hem Raj and Shri Krishan Ram in support of his case. He has also appeared himself in the witness box and has tendered in evidence the copies of FIR, MLC, pariwar register, jamabandi, medical bills. 10. Claimant-Krishan Ram has tendered in evidence copies of MLC, disability certificate, discharge slip, medical charges reimbursement form and the medical bills. 11. Claimant-Hem Raj has tendered in evidence copies of MLC, discharge slips, middle standard certificate, prescription slip, and the medical bills. 12. 10. Claimant-Krishan Ram has tendered in evidence copies of MLC, disability certificate, discharge slip, medical charges reimbursement form and the medical bills. 11. Claimant-Hem Raj has tendered in evidence copies of MLC, discharge slips, middle standard certificate, prescription slip, and the medical bills. 12. The driver, Shri Prakash Chand, and the owner- insured, Shri Subhash Chand, of the offending jeep, have appeared in the witness box and have tendered in evidence their affidavits and the driving licence of the driver of the offending jeep, namely Shri Prakash Chand. The insurer has examined Smt. Sima Rattan, Criminal Ahlmad in the office of JMIC Sundernagar and ASI Hem Raj, the investigating officer. 13. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,52,000/-, Rs. 2,60,605/- and Rs. 2,57,746/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of the filing of the claim petitions till deposition of the awarded amount came to be awarded in favour of the claimants in Claim Petition No. 15/2002, 14/2005; Claim Petition No. 13/2002, 9/2005 and Claim Petition No. 14/2002, 18/2005, respectively, and saddled the appellant-insurer of the offending truck, i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited, with liability. 14. It is apt to record herein that the Tribunal, after scanning the evidence and the pleadings held that the accident was not the outcome of the composite negligence, but was outcome of negligence of the driver of the offending truck, namely Shri Labh Singh, who had driven the offending truck rashly and negligently, that too, on the wrong side, hit the jeep in which the claimants were travelling, resulting in the accident in which the claimants sustained injuries, and saddled the insurer of the offending truck, i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited, with entire liability. The driver, namely Shri Prakash Chand, the owner-insured, namely Shri Subhash Chand, and the insurer, i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, of the offending jeep were held not liable. 15. While determining issues No. 3 and 4, the Tribunal held that the respondents in the claim petitions have not filed any evidence in support of these issues, though the onus to prove these issues was on the respondents, which they failed to do so, and decided the same against the respondents. While deciding issue No. 2, the Tribunal has saddled the appellant-New India Assurance Company with liability being insurer of the offending truck. 16. While deciding issue No. 2, the Tribunal has saddled the appellant-New India Assurance Company with liability being insurer of the offending truck. 16. I deem it proper to record herein that the legal representatives of the one of the claimants, namely Shri Krishan Ram, were ordered to be brought on record by this Court vide order, dated 13th April, 2012. 17. The owner-insured of the offending truck, the driver of the offending truck, the owner-insured of the offending jeep, the driver of the offending jeep and the claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 18. The appellant-insurer of the offending truck, i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited, has questioned the impugned award only on the ground that the driver of the offending truck, namely Shri Labh Singh, was not having valid and effective driving licence, the owner-insured of the offending truck, namely Shri Ram Dayal, has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus, the appellant-New India Assurance Company was not liable and came to be wrongly saddled with liability. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited further argued that it had moved an application before the Tribunal on 20th September, 2002, in terms of Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) read with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) for supplying copies of the insurance policy, route permit and other documents including the driving licence of the driver of the offending truck; the Tribunal has not determined the same and without determining the same, saddled the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited with liability. Further, that the driver of the offending truck, namely Shri Labh Singh, has not contested the claim petitions, was set ex-parte and the owner-insured of the offending truck has not disclosed the particulars of the driving licence, thus, the appellant-New India Assurance Company was not in a position to prove that the driver of the offending truck was not having a valid and effective driving licence. It is further contended that, in fact, it was for the insured-owner of the offending truck to produce the driving licence and to prove the same. 20. It is further contended that, in fact, it was for the insured-owner of the offending truck to produce the driving licence and to prove the same. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited further argued that the claimants have specifically averred in all the three claim petitions that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the offending vehicles, i.e. the truck and the jeep; then how the findings came to be recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was outcome of negligence of the truck driver, is not in accordance with the pleadings. 21. Learned counsel for the claimants have argued that it was for the insurer-New India Assurance Company to plead and prove that the owner of the offending truck has committed willful breach; the Tribunal has rightly determined all the issues and returned legal findings. 22. It is a fact that the claimants have pleaded in the claim petitions that accident was outcome of contributory negligence, but the respondents have filed reply. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer of the jeep have specifically pleaded in their replies that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck and not by the driver of the jeep. They have supported their pleadings by producing copy of the FIR and the report of the police. Even the claimants have filed rejoinder and stated that the accident was outcome of negligence of the truck driver. 23. The claimants have led evidence; all the three claimants have appeared in the witness box and have specifically deposed that the accident was outcome of negligence of the truck driver, who had driven the truck rashly and negligently, that too on the wrong side, hit the jeep and the claimants, who were sitting in the jeep, sustained injuries. The claimants have also examined HHC Birbal Singh, P.S. Sundernagar, who has deposed that after conducting the investigation, it was found that the truck driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently. Even the respondents have examined ASI Hem Raj, Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, and Smt. Sima Rattan, Criminal Ahlmad from the Court of JMIC, Court No. 2, Sundernagar, and both of them have deposed that as per investigation, it is the truck driver, who had caused the accident. 24. Even the respondents have examined ASI Hem Raj, Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, and Smt. Sima Rattan, Criminal Ahlmad from the Court of JMIC, Court No. 2, Sundernagar, and both of them have deposed that as per investigation, it is the truck driver, who had caused the accident. 24. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. 25. It pains to record herein that the claimants are the victims of a vehicular accident, which was caused on 10th October, 2001, filed claim petitions in the year 2002, were on the Board of the Tribunal till 6th August, 2010, i.e. for about a decade, and the appeals are on the Board of this Court for the last four years. This is how the claimants have been dragged in the lis because of their no fault and are waiting for compensation, which is required to be granted to them, as early as possible, in view of the mandate of Sections 165 to 176 contained in Chapter XII of the MV Act, the aim and object of which is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims and to provide compensation as early as possible without succumbing to the hyper-technicalities and the niceties of law. 26. The aim and object of the MV Act is to provide speedy compensation in order to save the claimants from social evils and other sufferings. It is not an adversarial litigation. 27. The Apex Court in a case titled as Dulcina Fernandes and others versus Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 646, held that strict pleadings and proof are not required while determining the claim petition as it is a non-adversarial litigation. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of paras 8 and 9 of the judgment herein: “8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509 , while considering the nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a three-Judge Bench of this Court has culled out certain propositions of which Propositions (ii), (v) and (vi) would be relevant to the facts of the present case and, therefore, may be extracted hereinbelow: “10. (ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. (ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. * * * (v) Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation....... (vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry.” 9. The following further observation available in para 10 of the Report would require specific note: (Shila Datta case, (2011) 10 SCC 509 , SCC p. 519) “10. ….........We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute." (Emphasis added) 28. It would also be profitable to record here in that the MV Act has undergone a sea change in the year 1994 by amendment in terms of Act 54 of 1994, whereby Sub-section (6) has been added to Section 158 of the MV Act and Sub-section (4) has been added to Section 166 of the MV Act, which provide that even the report of the police can be treated as a claim petition by the Claims Tribunal. The purpose of this amendment was just to avoid delay in granting compensation to the claimants. 29. If the report of the police can be treated as claim petition, how can claimants be asked to plead the things/facts precisely and how can they be asked to prove the said pleadings by applying the principles stricto sensu as per the Indian Evidence Act. 30. A perusal of the record do disclose that the appellant- New India Assurance Company, the insurer of the offending truck, dragged the claimants to this Court in the year 2004 also by way of filing appeals against order, dated 4th July, 2003, passed by the Tribunal, whereby Rs. 25,000/- were granted as compensation to the claimants under Section 140 of the MV Act on account of the injuries suffered by them. 25,000/- were granted as compensation to the claimants under Section 140 of the MV Act on account of the injuries suffered by them. This is how the purpose of granting compensation has been defeated and how the claimants have been dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar. 31. Admittedly, the appellant - insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent No. 5 in the claim petitions) had to discharge the onus. It had not led any evidence. Even the appellant-insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, has not made an effort right from 20th September, 2002, till 20th March, 2009, when the evidence was closed, to summon the driver of the offending truck as a witness or the owner of the offending truck to furnish copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending truck. Even, it has not summoned the record from the Court of JMIC, Sundernagar, despite the fact that one of the Court Clerk, namely Smt. Sima Rattan, RW-3, was examined and no question was put to her about the licence. The evidence of the claimants was closed on 30th December, 2005, and the respondents took four years to lead evidence. 32. It is unfortunate that despite earning sufficient opportunities for a period of about four years, the appellant- insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited has not been able to produce any witness and why the appellant-insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited, or its counsel has not virtually pressed the application filed on 20th September, 2002, till 20th March, 2009, when the evidence was closed in terms of the statement of the counsel appearing on behalf the appellant-insurer- New India Assurance Company Limited. 33. In the interim order, dated 20th March, 2009, the Tribunal has recorded that the respondent No. 5 has tendered in evidence Insurance policy Ex. R-5/A and closed evidence of respondent No. 5 as per separate statement on the file. Then, how it will lie in the mouth of the appellant-insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited that it was not given sufficient opportunities and the application was not determined. 34. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant is precluded from arguing that the application was not determined and it was not in a position to prove the factum of driving licence, its validity and genuineness. 35. 34. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant is precluded from arguing that the application was not determined and it was not in a position to prove the factum of driving licence, its validity and genuineness. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant argued, while referring to para 62 of the judgment, that in terms of mandate of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, it was for the owner to prove that the driver was having a valid driving licence. 36. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct in view of the conclusion made by the three-Judge Bench recorded in para 105 of the judgment. It is apt to reproduce para 105 (iii) and (iv) of the judgment herein: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them.” 37. The Apex Court has laid down that it is for the insurer to plead and prove that the driving licence was fake or ineffective or was not in accordance with law, which the insurer has failed to do so in the present case. 38. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited with liability. 39. 38. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited with liability. 39. Noticing the conduct of the appellant, as discussed hereinabove, I deem it proper to impose costs in all the three appeals, quantified at Rs. 10,000/- in each of the appeals, to be paid to the claimants. 40. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeals merit to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 41. The appellant-insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the costs within four weeks before the Registry of this Court. 42. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount alongwith the costs in favour of the claimants in FAOs No. 470 & 471 of 2010 strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. In FAO No. 469 of 2010, 50% of the awarded amount be released in favour of the widow of the deceased claimant and the remaining 50% be released, in equal shares, in favour of other legal representatives. 43. All the appeals are disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith all pending applications. 44. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on each of the files.