JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants/original claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.271/2017 filed present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. (Hereinafter, parties are referred as per their original status before the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience and brevity).

2. The claimants had approached the Tribunal at Beed under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, thereby raising claim for compensation of Rs.96,13,756/- towards accidental death of Sunil Navnath Dhat. The claimants contend that deceased Sunil was traveling in Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No.MH-23-AD-0755 from Parali towards Beed. The respondent no.2 was driving car in rash and negligent manner. He lost his control. Resultantly, car collided to road side tree. The occupants of the car suffered injuries in the said accident. Sunil was seriously injured. He was shifted to Civil Hospital, Beed where he was declared dead. The offence was registered against car driver with Police Station Pimpalner vide Crime No.248/2017.

3. The claimants further contend that Sunil was aged about 35 years and he was an engineering graduate. He was engaged as Government contractor. He had many civil construction works in hand from Municipal Corporation so also Government Authorities and private individuals. His annual income was Rs.7,81,564/- for the year 2016-2017 as per the Income Tax Returns submitted by him for the year 2016-2017. As such, claimants raised the claim against respondents seeking compensation, attributing negligence against car driver.

4. The claim was contested by respondent no.3-Insurer of the car on the ground that the insured car was owned by the father of the deceased. Deceased was traveling as occupant in the car. He was using car for his own benefit, as such, he stepped into the shoes of insured. Hence, he cannot be termed as third party. It is further pleaded that by additional contract, the personal accidental cover is provided to the occupants to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Therefore, the liability of insurer would be limited to that extent. It is further pleaded that contents of FIR, show that the deceased was bachelor. The claimant no.1 has to established her relationship as wife of the deceased. The Tribunal after framing the issues, recorded evidence of parties. The claimants relied upon the evidence of claimant no.1-Bharti. She has further relied upon the evidence of Bhanudas Jadhav, Chartered Accountant to prove Income Tax Returns submitted by the deceased from the year 2013 till his death. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, concluded that the deceased cannot be treated as third party. He stepped into the shoes of the owner, as such, dismissed claim observing that no claim can be maintained by claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

5. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the offending car was insured under Private Car Package Policy. The risk of the occupants deemed to have been covered under such insurance policy. The Tribunal under erroneous conception of law and by misinterpretation of the insurance contract, dismissed the claim. He would further submit that the deceased was Engineering graduate, holding Government license as contractor. He had large number of construction sites. He was regularly paying Income Tax. The evidence on record depicts that from 2013 onwards there is consistent growth in his income. The claimants were dependent on him. The Tribunal ought to have taken pragmatic view of the matter and passed the award.

6. Per contra, Mr. Kadethankar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.3-Insurer submits that the vehicle was owned and insured in the name of respondent no.1 Navnath Dhat i.e. father of the deceased. Appare