JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. In this appeal award dated 11.4.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur at Nahan (hereinafter referred to as the MACT) in Petition No. 35- MAC/2 of 2007 titled Teja Singh and others vs. Parvinder Singh and others, has been assailed by claimants, for dismissal of their claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act) seeking compensation for a sum of Rs 4,87,000/- on account of death of Sanjay Kumar in an accident dated 18.2.2007, which took place near Kalesar Police Station Khijrabad, District Yamunanagar (Haryana). 2. Appellants/claimants Nos. 1 and 2 are parents, whereas appellants/claimants No. 3 and 4 are sister and brother of deceased Sanjay Kumar. Respective age of appellants/claimants, on the date of filing of claim petition, was 47, 45, 16 and 13 years. Age of deceased, as disclosed by PW2 Teja Singh and PW3 Kirat Singh, which is not disputed and as also mentioned in postmortem report, was 20 years on the day of accident. 3. Claim of appellants is that on 18.2.2007 deceased Sanjay Kumar, who was earning his livelihood and serving his parents, sister and brother by doing private labour work, was going to Delhi in Maruti Car No. HP-01N- 0126 (old temporary No. UP-BAT-8941) owned by respondent No.1 Parvinder Singh along with Jugal Kishore (respondent No.2) driver of car and at 4.30 AM when car reached at village Kalesar, it collided with truck No. HR-37A- 0093 left on road after an accident taken place earlier with said truck on 16.2.2007, causing head injury to Sanjay Kumar and minor injuries to Jugal Kishore and while both of them were being taken to hospital, Sanjay Kumar succumbed to his injuries. 4. According to claimants, PW3 Kirat Singh, uncle of deceased Sanjay, at the same time, was going towards Yamunanagar along with his uncle Duggal Singh on motorcycle and he had witnessed the accident when it occurred after overtaking of their motorcycle by the car and he had rescued and removed the injured from the spot in another truck to the hospital at Paonta Sahib and he was the person, who had informed the police telephonically about accident at about 5.30 AM on the same day. 5. 5. Respondent No. 1 Parvinder Singh is owner, respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore is driver and respondent No.3 National Insurance Company is insurer of car No. HP-01N- 0126. 6. Respondent No.4 Bhagmal is owner, respondent No.5 Dinesh Tomar is driver and respondent No. 6 Oriental Insurance Company is insurer of truck No. HR-37A-0093. Respondent No.7 is State of Haryana. 7. According to claimants, not only respondent No.2 was driving the car rashly and negligently, but there was also negligence on the part of owner/driver of truck as well as State of Haryana for leaving damaged truck on road causing obstruction to free flow of traffic which resulted into fatal accident. 8. Defence taken by car owner and driver is that their car, being plied as taxi was hired by some officers/officials of private company namely M/s Ranbaxy for coming from Delhi to Paonta Sahib and thus respondent No.2 was going to Delhi alone in the said car and at that time weather was foggy and visibility was very low, because of which driver of car could not notice the truck parked on middle of road and the car had collided with the truck causing simple injuries to driver. Their further case is that on coming out of the accidental car, respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore (driver) had noticed one person lying on road because of collision of his motorcycle with truck which had occurred before the collision of car with truck and another person, who was standing there, had asked him (respondent No.2) to help to shift the injured to hospital, whereupon, he had helped in shifting of the said injured, who was Sanjay Kumar, to the hospital. According to car owner and driver, they have been falsely implicated in order to claim compensation from them. 9. According to car owner and driver, they have been falsely implicated in order to claim compensation from them. 9. It is the case of truck owner that his truck had met with an accident on 16.2.2007 whereupon it was impounded by police and it was in the custody of police w.e.f. 17.2.2007 till 21.2.2007 the date when it was released to him (owner of truck) by the Court passing a judicial order and therefore, during the intervening period, it was responsibility of State/police to remove the vehicle from the road and park it at an appropriate place and, therefore, owner of truck as well as driver of truck claimed that they are not responsible for parking of truck on the spot, much less for any negligence in this regard. 10. Insurance companies of respective vehicles have taken the general defence that they are not liable to pay any compensation for user of vehicles in contravention of policy and for want of valid driving licence with drivers of vehicles involved in accident. Respondent No.7 State of Haryana has also denied its liability alleging that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of car driver. 11. Claimants have examined PW1 Ganga Ram, who has proved copy of challan Ext.PW1/A, copy of FIR No.21 dated 18.2.2007 Ext.PW1/B and postmortem report Ext.PW1/C and driving licence of Jugal Kishore Ext.PW1/D. He has also proved MLC of Jugal Kishore Ext.PW1/E. In cross examination he has proved copy of registration certificate of Car No. HP-01N-0126 Ext.RA to be true copy of original registration certificate available with him in record. 12. PW2 Teja Singh is one of the claimants, who is father of deceased Sanjay Kumar. In his statement, he has given details of his family, stating further that deceased Sanjay Kumar was the only bread earner of family, who used to earn Rs.110/- per day and used to feed the entire family, which was dependent upon him only. He has restated the occurrence of accident and corroborated the version of recording the FIR and conducting postmortem of deceased Sanjay Kumar. He has also stated that in criminal case respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore was facing trial for causing accident in reference by driving the car rashly and negligently. He has denied the plea of owner and driver that deceased Sanjay Kumar was driving the motorcycle which had struck with the truck. He has also stated that in criminal case respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore was facing trial for causing accident in reference by driving the car rashly and negligently. He has denied the plea of owner and driver that deceased Sanjay Kumar was driving the motorcycle which had struck with the truck. In his cross examination, he has admitted that PW3 Kirat Singh is his real brother and accident had taken place at a distance of 13-14 km from his house and PW3 Kirat Singh had informed him telephonically about death of his son and he had not visited the spot. He has denied that deceased was unemployed and was not doing anything. In cross examination, it has been suggested to him that he himself was earning Rs.4000/- per month by doing labour work, which has been denied by him. He has re-asserted that their family was dependent upon deceased Sanjay Kumar. 13. PW3 Kirat Singh in his examination-in-chief, filed by way of affidavit, has re-asserted the case put-forth in the petition and according to him, the truck was parked at a dark place and there was no indicator on its rear and front side of the truck nor any conductor or any other person was present on spot and accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of car. PW2 Teja Singh and PW3 Kirat Singh have asserted that age of deceased at the time of accident was 20 years which was not disputed in cross examination at any point of time. In his lengthy cross examination, nothing material has been elucidated so as to discard his statement. 14. Respondents No.1 and 2 have examined themselves as witnesses to substantiate their plea. Respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore has been examined as RW1. In his examination-in-chief, filed by way of affidavit, he has stated that deceased Sanjay Kumar was lying unconscious on the spot and another person who was there asked this witness for his help to take the injured to hospital. In crossexamination, this witness has stated that there was none on the road except the injured when car struck against the stationary truck. Not only this, he has denied the suggestion that somebody had told him that injured had struck against the truck and he has again explained that there was none to tell it. In crossexamination, this witness has stated that there was none on the road except the injured when car struck against the stationary truck. Not only this, he has denied the suggestion that somebody had told him that injured had struck against the truck and he has again explained that there was none to tell it. He has admitted that even at that time, despite light of head lights of car, truck was not visible. As has been proved by RW4 ASI Om Parkash that this witness was facing trial for rash and negligent driving in this case, but in crossexamination this witness, contrary to reality, has denied that a criminal case was pending against him in the Court at Yamunanagar for rash and negligent driving of car by him. He has further stated that he did not make any report to any authority against his false implication in criminal case. 15. RW2 Parvinder Singh owner of car has reasserted his stand that his car was hired by officials of M/s Ranbaxy Company and deceased was not travelling in car on that day and according to him, the truck HR-37A-0093 was parked wrongly and negligently in the semi-horizontal position in middle of road which was main cause of accident. It is pertinent to mention that insurer of car has also taken objection that policy of insurance Ext.RX issued for car is a policy of private vehicle, but not of a commercial/taxi vehicle. In his cross examination, RW2 Parvinder Singh has stated that this insurance was purchased by the Agency/Car Dealer namely D.D. Motors at Dehradun at the time of purchasing of vehicle and at that time, it was informed to Dealer/Agency that said vehicle was to be used as a taxi. According to him, the fact that this insurance has been issued with respect to private vehicle has come in his knowledge only after the accident and therefore, he had never got the insurance changed from car to taxi. According to him as he had already informed the dealer/Agency through whom vehicle was insured, that vehicle was to be used as taxi. Therefore, he did not ever get the insurance changed from car to taxi as he had never read the contents of insurance policy. 16. According to him as he had already informed the dealer/Agency through whom vehicle was insured, that vehicle was to be used as taxi. Therefore, he did not ever get the insurance changed from car to taxi as he had never read the contents of insurance policy. 16. RW3 Mehar Singh Registration Clerk of Registering and Licensing Authority (in short RLA) of Paonta Sahib has been examined to prove that driving licence of Jugal Kishore was issued to drive light motor vehicles only and according to this witness, this was not valid for driving any transport vehicle including taxi. 17. RW4 ASI Om Parkash from P.S. Khijrabad has deposed that truck involved in accident, prior to this accident, had met with another accident on 16.2.2007 and was impounded by police on 17.2.2007 after registration of FIR No. 18 dated 17.2.2007 in P.S. Khijrabad. He has further stated that information about occurrence of accident on 18.2.2007 with same truck and car being driven by respondent No.2, was received, whereupon police had visited the hospital at Paonta Sahib where statement of PW3 Kirat Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of same FIR No.21/2007 was registered in P.S. Khizrabad against respondent No.2 wherein respondent No.2 was facing trial in challan presented in the Court on the basis of deposition of this witness. 18. RW5 Bhagmal is owner of truck and had stated that his truck met with an accident on 17.2.2007 which was taken in possession by police in case FIR No. 18 dated 17.2.2007 and it was in police custody till 21.2.2007, on which date it was released in his favour by the Magistrate. He has further stated that he or his insurer are not liable to pay any compensation to claimants as they have no role in the said accident. He has admitted the factum of accident of car on 18.2.2007. The witness has also produced on record Registration Certificate Ext.RW5/A and driving licence of truck driver Ext.RW5/B. 19. After considering material on record, claim petition has been dismissed by the MACT vide impugned award under challenge. 20. On the basis of pleadings, learned MACT had framed various issues, wherein one main issue is as under:- “1. The witness has also produced on record Registration Certificate Ext.RW5/A and driving licence of truck driver Ext.RW5/B. 19. After considering material on record, claim petition has been dismissed by the MACT vide impugned award under challenge. 20. On the basis of pleadings, learned MACT had framed various issues, wherein one main issue is as under:- “1. Whether Sanjay Kumar died on account of injuries sustained by him on his person due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car Alto LX No. UP-BAT-8961 and truck No. HR-37A-0093 on 18.2.2007 at about 4.30 AM at place Kalesar, Tehsil Chachhrauli, District Yamunagar, as allleged?” 21. Not only the aforesaid main issue,, but an additional issue 9A was also framed on 22.10.2011, which reads as under:- “1. Whether the accident in which Sanjay Kumar died, occurred on account of composite negligence of respondents No. 2 and 7, as alleged?” 22. Learned MACT has failed to appreciate that claim petition was preferred by claimants under Section 163-A of MV Act, provision whereof reads as under:- “163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be…….” 23. As provided in Section 163-A(1), the owner of vehicle or authorized insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, as indicated in Second Schedule. Sub-section (2) of Section 163-A of MV Act provides that for claim under Section 163A(1) of MV Act the claimants shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement referred in petition was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-section (2) of Section 163-A of MV Act provides that for claim under Section 163A(1) of MV Act the claimants shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement referred in petition was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Therefore, the main issue, to be decided in this petition, was and is that whether Sanjay Kumar had died in an accident dated 18.2.2007 arising out of use of motor vehicles i.e Maruti Car Alto LX No. HP-01-N-0126 (old No.UP-BAT-8941) and truck No. HR- 37A-0093. The issue regarding rash and negligent act on the part of any person is not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of claim as put forth by claimants herein under Section 163 of the MV Act. 24. From the pleadings, evidence placed on record and depositions of witnesses, it is undisputed fact that on account of accident taken place on 16.2.2007, truck No. HR- 37A-0093 was left parked on road and on 18.2.2007 car being driven by respondent No.2 had struck with it wherein respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore had also received injuries. The only dispute is that according to claimants deceased Sanjay Kumar was travelling in car, whereas, according to car owner, he was driving the motorcycle which had struck with truck prior to collision of car with truck. In both eventualities, accident had occurred and death had arisen out of use of truck No. HR-37A-0093 parked on road. 25. Veracity of plea of claimants, and denial thereof by car owner and driver, that Sanjay Kumar was travelling in car is to be evaluated from the evidence on record. RW4 ASI Om Parkash is an independent witness with reference to claimants and owners/drivers of vehicles involved in accident. He has proved on record that Kirat Singh had informed the police about accident whereupon FIR No. 21 dated 18.2.2007 was registered in P.S. Khijrabad against Jugal Kishore which caused filing a criminal challan against respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore, copy whereof is Ext.PW1/A. It has corroborated the version of PW2 Teja Singh and PW3 Kirat Singh. The MACT has discarded the evidentiary value of this FIR on the ground that there was delay in informing the police. Accident had taken place at 4.30 AM, leading to death of Sanjay Kumar by 5.30 AM. The MACT has discarded the evidentiary value of this FIR on the ground that there was delay in informing the police. Accident had taken place at 4.30 AM, leading to death of Sanjay Kumar by 5.30 AM. According to PW3 Kirat Singh, he had tried to take the injured i.e. Sanjay Kumar and Jugal Kishore to hospital in truck, but on the way, Sanjay Kumar succumbed to the injuries and in the meanwhile, he had informed the father of deceased as well as police telephonically, whereupon, police from P.S. Khijrabad had visited the hospital and had recorded statement of PW3 Kirat Singh at about 12.15 PM and thereafter FIR was registered at 1.30 PM. Informing the police was in the hands of PW3. But arrival of police was not under his control. Police came to hospital by Noon and immediately thereafter, PW3 made the statement to police at 12.15 PM and thereafter, within no time FIR was registered at 1.30 PM. In a case, where the family member or relative has lost in an accident, the relatives and family members are supposed to make arrangements for getting the dead body from hospital and to cremate it and most of times, it may not be considered necessary by them to rush to Police Station in order to lodge FIR. Therefore, lodging of FIR, in facts and circumstances of the present case, is within reasonable period. 26. Plea taken by car owner and driver that deceased was driving motorcycle and had struck himself with truck appears to have been concocted later-on at the time of filing defence to claim petition. Had it been reality, respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore must have agitated against registration of FIR No. 21 against him alleging commission of an offence by him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving the car rashly and negligently and causing death of deceased Sanjay Kumar. Not only at the time of lodging of complaint, but even during trial, he has not made any objection against it as admitted by him in cross examination. 27. Not only at the time of lodging of complaint, but even during trial, he has not made any objection against it as admitted by him in cross examination. 27. Veracity of respondents No.1 and 2 on aforesaid count also becomes doubtful in deposition of RW1 Jugal Kishore where in examination in chief, he has tried to support the story that there were two persons present on spot including deceased Sanjay Kumar prior to the accident of car and another person present there had requested him to help but in cross examination he has falsified his own version by stating that there was none on spot except injured Sanjay Kumar and he has also denied that somebody had told him that injured had struck with truck himself. 28. The MACT has not taken the entire evidence, available on record, into consideration at the time of deciding the claim petition. From the aforesaid evidence, it is proved on record that at the time of fatal accident, Sanjay Kumar was travelling in car No. HP-01N-0126 which had struck with truck No. HR-37A-0093 parked on road after a previous accident, and deceased Sanjay Kumar had expired in that accident and therefore, his death has arisen out of use of these vehicles i.e. Car No. HP-01N-0126 and truck No. HR-37A-0093 and therefore, in a claim under Section 163-A of MV Act, rash and negligent driving is not required to be proved and without going to the issue of rash and negligence, it can be concluded that owners or authorized insurers of these vehicles are liable to pay the compensation to legal heirs of deceased in accordance with calculations of Second Schedule of the MACT. 29. Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company, insurer of Car No.HP-01N-0126 had taken a defence that policy issued by said Company was with respect to private car, whereas respondent No.3 was using this vehicle as a taxi for which higher premium was to be paid and therefore, the Insurer is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1 with respect to any compensation payable or paid for an accident arising out of use of vehicle contrary to policy. In this regard, specific issues No. 5 and 6 were framed which read as under:- “5. Whether the risk of the deceased was not covered under the terms of Insurance Policy, as alleged?OPR4 and 5 6. In this regard, specific issues No. 5 and 6 were framed which read as under:- “5. Whether the risk of the deceased was not covered under the terms of Insurance Policy, as alleged?OPR4 and 5 6. Whether the car was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as allged? OPR3” 30. Only evidence produced on behalf of Insurance Company is RW3 Mehar Singh, Registration Clerk of RLA Office who has stated that driving licence of respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore was issued from the office of RLA Paonta Sahib bearing No. 17579 dated 20.5.2006 for plying light motor vehicles only and it was valid upto 17.2.2022 and it was not valid for any transport vehicle including taxi. No other evidence has been brought on record on behalf of Insurance Company. 31. Statement of this witness (RW3 Mehar Singh) is of no help to Insurance Company as no such issue was framed with respect to driving licence of driver of car. Terms and conditions of policy, breach whereof has been alleged, have not seen light of the day, despite framing of specific issue. So far as issue related to valid and effective licence of truck driver is concerned, no evidence has been led in this regard and therefore, this issue is also decided against Insurance Company. Moreover, truck was stationary and under the custody of police at the time of accident and therefore, there was no question of being driven by unauthorized person or a person not having any effective and valid driving licence. There is nothing on record to prove that petition filed by claimants is collusive in nature. 32. Copy of Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule of car has been brought on record by respondents/owners which is Ext.RX and it was valid from 20th August, 2006 to 19th August, 2007. Though it is written on the top of it that it is a package policy (Private Vehicle) but nothing material has been brought on record to prove issue No.5 that risk of deceased was not covered under the terms of insurance policy. In fact, terms and conditions of policy placed on record are not visible and Insurance Company has withheld the relevant evidence despite the fact that burden for proving issues No. 5 and 6 was upon the Insurance Company. In fact, terms and conditions of policy placed on record are not visible and Insurance Company has withheld the relevant evidence despite the fact that burden for proving issues No. 5 and 6 was upon the Insurance Company. In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence in favour of Insurance Company to substantiate the plea taken and to be proved in furtherance of issues No. 5 and 6, these issues are decided against the Insurance Company. 33. As the Claim Petition has been preferred under Section 163A of MV Act, instead of considering rashness and negligence on behalf of respondents, claim of the petitioners is considered in the light of provisions of Section 163A of MV Act, wherein, irrespective of rashness and negligence, only factor, i.e. accident arising out of use of vehicle is to be taken into consideration. Further, argument canvassed, particularly on behalf of Insurance Company of the Truck involved, that accident has taken place on account of negligence on the part of respondent No.7 – State of Haryana, as the Truck was impounded by the police in another accident but was not removed from the site of accident which had caused accident in reference, is found untenable for the evidence on record that there was no glow lights/reflectors/indicators on the Truck either on front side or on rear side for which driver and owner of the Truck are definitely responsible. 34. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether any precautionary steps were ever taken by the driver or owner of the Truck to avoid any further accident which might have been possible for their Truck stationed on the road. Even if, accidental vehicle, in papers, has been taken in custody by the Investigating Agency or police then also its driver or owner is not absolved from his/their duty for taking preventive steps to avoid collusion of other vehicle with the accidental vehicle, while it is stationed at site of accident. 35. Even if, accidental vehicle, in papers, has been taken in custody by the Investigating Agency or police then also its driver or owner is not absolved from his/their duty for taking preventive steps to avoid collusion of other vehicle with the accidental vehicle, while it is stationed at site of accident. 35. It is also noticeable that even if vehicle is taken in possession from the owner of the vehicle by the State Agency then possession from driver or owner shifts to the Government Agency, however, insurer thereof remains the same and, therefore, even if there is negligence on the part of State of Haryana being occupier/possessor of the vehicle then also accident has taken place for use of Truck as well as Car, for damages arising whereof the Insurance Company(ies) of the Truck as well as Car are liable to indemnify for compensation under Section 163A of MV Act. 36. Therefore, for discussion hereinabove and also for the reason that petition has been preferred under Section 163A of the MV Act and no vehicle of respondent No.7 – State of Haryana is involved in the present case, no liability is being fastened upon respondent No.7 – State of Haryana. 37. In view of above discussion, it is held that petition is maintainable against all respondents including respondents No. 1 and 2 and deceased Sanjay Kumar had died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred at about 4.30 AM on 18.2.2007 arising out of use of vehicles i.e. car No.HP-01N-0126 and truck No. HR-37A- 0093 and therefore, under Section 163-A ,petitioners are entitled for compensation as calculated hereinafter and Insurance Company(ies), for want of evidence, have failed to prove that risk of deceased was not covered under the terms of Insurance Policy and vehicles were being plied in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. 38. With respect to income, no evidence except the statement of PW2 Teja Singh and PW3 Kirat Singh is on record, wherein they claimed that deceased was earning Rs.110/- per day by doing labour work privately. This version has been disputed in cross examination by suggesting that deceased was unemployed, but the said suggestion has been denied. It has also been suggested to father PW2 Teja Singh that he himself is earning Rs.4000/- per month by doing labour work. This version has been disputed in cross examination by suggesting that deceased was unemployed, but the said suggestion has been denied. It has also been suggested to father PW2 Teja Singh that he himself is earning Rs.4000/- per month by doing labour work. In cross-examination, it has also been explained by PW2 and PW3 that family of deceased is also having small land. Therefore, naturally the deceased must have been helping the family in agriculture work also. Rs.100/- per day is the minimum wage which a labourer must have been earning in the year 2007 and even if it is considered that work was not available throughout the year/month then also there was landed property wherein deceased could have helped the family in agricultural work during those days when work was not available. 39. On the basis of daily income of Rs.100/- per day, monthly income would be Rs.3000/- and annual income would be Rs.36,000/-. Even if help of deceased in agriculture work is ignored and it is considered that work was not available throughout the month or year and he had also taken a holiday once a week, then also his income for at least 25 days may be taken into consideration, which would be Rs.2500/- per month leading to earning of Rs.30,000/- as annual income. His age was 20 years and therefore, according to Schedule Second of MV Act, the claimants shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- and applying the conditions prescribed in Note below the Schedule 1/3rd of this compensation is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. Therefore, after 1/3rd deduction, the claimants shall be entitled for Rs.3,60,000/-. Claimants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on this amount of compensation from the date of filing of petition i.e. 27.9.2007 till full and final realization of amount of compensation. The parents of deceased shall be entitled for 30% each of total compensation amount whereas claimant sister and brother shall be entitled for 20% each thereof. 40. The parents of deceased shall be entitled for 30% each of total compensation amount whereas claimant sister and brother shall be entitled for 20% each thereof. 40. In view of provision of Section 163-A of MV Act and in the light of evidence on record, compensation amount is payable by owners of vehicles involved in the accident and respondent No.3 being insurer of car No. HP- 01N-0126 and respondent No.6 Oriental Insurance Company being insurer of truck No. HR-37A-0093, are liable to indemnify owners of these vehicles. Therefore, these Companies are directed to pay the amount of compensation in equal shares to claimants on or before 30th May, 2021 along with up-to-date interest by indemnifying the owner of car as well as truck. Appeal is accordingly allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.