JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment and order since the main issue involved in both these appeals is common.

3. In both these appeals, the appellant (owner of the vehicle) questions the judgments and awards dated 23.08.2012 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, (Tribunal) holding inter alia that the respondents – Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount determined, inter alia on the ground that there was a breach of essential terms of the insurance policy or that the policy did not cover any liability towards occupants/passengers in the vehicle.

4. Initially the tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 29.08.2008 had exonerated the insurance company. However, these awards were challenged by the present appellants by instituting First Appeal Nos.115 and 117 of 2010. These First Appeals were partly allowed by this Court by making the following order :

“In view of the above, I pass the following order :

ORDER

(i) Both the appeals are partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgments in both the above appeals dated 29.08.2008 are quashed and set aside. The claim petition nos. 173/2006 and 231/2006 are restored to the files of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao. (iii) The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petitions afresh in the light of the observations made herein above after hearing both the parties in accordance with law.

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.11.2011 at 10.00 a.m.

(v) Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.”

5. The insurance company applied for review vide Civil Application (Review) No.32 of 2011 and the same was disposed of by order dated 23.11.2011, granting the insurance company liberty to amend its written statement and to take specific plea about the offending vehicle being used for hire as a taxi.

6. It is in pursuance to the remand as aforesaid the tribunal vide impugned awards dated 23.08.2012 has once again exonerated the insurance company from liability to pay any compensation.

7. Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal on remand ought to have decided the matter afresh even the issue of compensation and since this is not done the matter should be once again remanded to the tribunal for deciding all the issues together and afresh. He relied on Bimlesh & others vs New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591 in support of this contention.

8. Mr. S. S. Kakodkar without prejudice to the aforesaid then submitted that the tribunal has addressed the issue of liability of the insurance company in a very cursory manner without even bothering to ascertain whether the insurance policy, in this case, was an "act policy” or whether the same was “comprehensive/package policy". He referred to the insurance policy which is on record and submitted that the same was a comprehensive/package policy. He submitted that this policy covers the liability in respect of occupants of the vehicle. He submitted that there were neither any pleadings nor any legal evidence about the occupants being charged any amount for their transportation. He, therefore, submits that there is no evidence that the vehicle was used for hire or reward. Based on this, he submitted that the insurance company could never have been exonerated in the matter of this nature. He relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Balakrishnan & Anr, 2013 ALL SCR 104, Jagtar Singh alias Jagdev Singh Vs Sanjeev Kumar and others, (2018) 15 SCC 189 in support of his contention.

9. Mr. S. S. Kakodkar submitted that the compensation amount determined in this case is excessive. He submitted that there is no proper evidence about the salary of the deceased or their ages. In the absence of crucial evidence on both these aspects, the tribunal erred in determining the c