The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal, liability of Insurance Company, third-party coverage, breach of insurance policy conditions, and just compensation.

JUDGMENT

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. First Appeal No. 90/2015 challenges the judgment and award dated March 11, 2015, made under sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and First Appeal No. 813/2022(f) challenges the impugned judgment and award dtd. 16/11/2021 made under sec. 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). In addition, the Claimants have filed a cross-objection in First Appeal No. 813/2022(f ), claiming higher compensation. Accordingly, it is only appropriate that a common judgment and order dispose of both these appeals and the cross-objection.

3. Both appeals arise out of Claim Petition No. 120/2013, instituted by the widow and three minor children of the late Kundan Mayekar, who died in a vehicular accident on 8/4/2011. In the award under sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded compensation of 50,000/- to the claimants. On the other hand, in the award under sec. 166 of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.33,70,000.00, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, till full and final payment, after adjusting the award under sec. 140 of the M.V. Act. Hence, the appeals by the Appellant-Insurance Company.

4. Mr. James Lopes, the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that the accident, in this case, did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, given the provisions of sec. 165 of the M.V. Act.

5. Mr. Lopes further submitted that the accident, in this case, was not caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Therefore, he submitted that in terms of sec. 147(1)(b)(i) of the M.V. Act, the Appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner or the driver of the insured vehicle. He submits that since the Tribunal did not properly consider this aspect, the Appellant-Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability of making any payments.

6. Mr. Lopes further submitted that the deceased Kundan Mayenkar was not a "third party", and consequently, no claim petition was maintainable against the Appellant-Insurance Company. He submits that the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated even this aspect and, therefore, the Appellant-Insurance Company was required to be exonerated from any compensation liability to the claimants.

7. Mr. Lopes finally submitted that the evidence on record establishes a breach of the insurance policy's terms. He elaborates that the permission, in this case, was to use the vehicle as a goods vehicle fitted with a cargo cabin. Instead, the insured unauthorisedly altered the vehicle by installing a tank, thereby converting the vehicle into a tanker. He submits that there was no permission to use the vehicle as a tanker. He presents that the alteration was also unauthorized. He relies on Sec. 66, 77, 78, and 79 of the M.V. Act, read with sec. 147 of the M.V. Act.

8. Mr. Lopes relies on (Ashok Yadav and ors. Vs. Shakur Mohammad and ors.), ; (Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And ors.). ; (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathaamma and ors.), and (Amrit Paul Singh and ors. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. And ors.), SC/ 0582/2018 in support of the above contentions.

9. Mr Lopes, without prejudice to the above contentions, also submitted that there was no evidence, in this case, to sustain the finding that the deceased earned Rs.20,000.00 per month from his welding workshop/garage. He submitted that though the Appellant-Insurance Company has not obtained any leave under sec. 170 of the M.V. Act, since it was a duty of the Court to determine just compensation, the Appellant-Insurance company must be allowed to question the compensation awarded by the Tribunal because such compensation was not just compensation. He relied on Minimum Wage Rates in 2011 and submitted that in terms of such rules, an unskilled worker like