JUDGMENT :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Appellant/Insurance Company assailed the impugned award dated 03.02.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, 'Claims Tribunal'), Bilaspur in Claim Case No.378 of 2009, wherein learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- as compensation in a death case.

2. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.06.2009 deceased Krishna Kumar was driving a tractor bearing No.CG10-A-5654 (offending vehicle) and was going towards Seepat. At that relevant time, near Nargoda turning, one motor cycle suddenly came in front of his tractor and while saving the motorcyclist from accident, tractor turned turtle due to which Krishna Kumar died.

3. The claimants who are unfortunate wife and parents of deceased Krishna Kumar have filed claim application under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') claiming total sum of compensation of Rs. 8,08,000/- against the owner and insurer of offending vehicle. The grounds mentioned in the claim application are that the deceased was working as driver of tractor and on the date of accident he was earning Rs. 3,000/-per month. The claimants were dependant on him for their livelihood.

4. Non-applicants/owner and insurer in the claim application of the offending vehicle, after service of notice made their appearance before learned Claims Tribunal and submitted their reply.

5. Owner in his reply pleaded that he was owner of the tractor bearing No.CG10A-5654 and on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company for a period from 21.01.2009 to 20.01.2010 midnight. Though he denied the fact of involvement of his tractor in the accident, further pleaded that liability if any, for payment of compensation would be on the Insurance Company as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.

6. Insurance Company also submitted its reply to the claim application and pleaded that as the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle and died in the accident, application under Section 163A of the Act would not be maintainable. Further it also been pleaded that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license, therefore, there is violation of conditions of Insurance Policy and the Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability. It has also been pleaded that driver of offending vehicle is also one of the necessary party in the claim application and therefore, the claimants who are LRs of the deceased / driver of offending vehicle, cannot maintain claim application in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. Learned Claims Tribunal initially passed an award on 03.12.2010 which was challenged by the Insurance Company before this Court in MAC-336 of 2011. Division Bench of this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, remanded the case with a direction to consider certain provision of the Act and Rules of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 for determining the just and proper compensation.

8. After remand of the case, claimants did not choose to amend their pleadings and learned Claims Tribunal thereafter proceeded further and framed additional issues with respect to violation of conditions of Insurance Policy and after considering the claim case afresh, passed impugned award and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,17,500/- to the claimants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal committed error in not considering the application under Section 163A of the Act as it was not maintainable as the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle and met with an accident of his own negligence. Further he argued that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and effective license to drive the vehicle with an endorsement of 'LMV only'. The offending vehicle was registered as 'Commercial vehicle' but there was no en