Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1 on this miscellaneous appeal.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.08.2011 and award dated 08.09.2011 passed by the learned 1stAdditional District Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Begusarai (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 67 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal allowing the claim petition directed the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘Insurance Company’) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,56,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim case to the claimant respondent no.1.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that claimant respondent no.1 filed M.A.C.T. Case No.67 of 2005 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation on account of death of her son, Mukesh Jha alias Mukesh Kumar Jha with the case in succinct that the said Mukesh Jha alias Mukesh Kumar Jha was authorized representative of M.R. Trading Company. On 18.10.2010 he was proceeding from Garhara Railway Station to Simaria Railway Station by loading wire of the company on the tractor bearing registration no. BRI-7568 and trailor bearing registration no. BRI 7569. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently. As soon as the said tractor arrived at around 2:30 PM near Garhara ground water tank, where the road was damaged, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver it turned turtle and the said Mukesh Kumar Jha sustained serious injury in the accident. He was rushed to the Nursing Home of Dr. M.N. Rai, Bishnupur, Begusarai to accord him medical aid but he succumbed to his injury during the course of treatment. Further case of the claimant is that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and he was unmarried. He was a contract labourer and used to earn Rs.3000/- per month as wages-cum-salary.

4. Both the opposite parties put their appearance in the case but only the appellant filed the written statement and contested the case. The claimant-respondent adduced ocular as well as documentary evidence in buttress of her case.

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award as detailed in earlier paragraph.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was insured under Act only policy and the deceased Mukesh Kumar Jha was traveling on the trailor of the tractor. Hence, the risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that as the deceased happens to be son of the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.2) and was traveling in the said vehicle, hence he stepped into the shoe of the owner of the vehicle and this way he has become owner of the vehicle and not third party and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in case of death of owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the claimant, being the mother of the deceased and wife of the owner of the offending vehicle, she is claimant and recipient both and she is not entitled to get any compensation from the Insurance Company.

8. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the claimant-respondent that there has been partition between the father and son preceding to the death of accident and the deceased was traveling on the said vehicle in his separate status and entity as a labourer of M.R. Trading Company so he had not stepped into the shoe of the owner of the vehicle rather is a third party. It is fur