IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Sections 165, 166, 149, 2(21), and 2(47), in determining the compensation amount and addressing the liability of the Insurance Company in case of technical breaches concerning driving license conditions.

ORDER :

1. Since, the above mentioned appeals arise out of a common award, they are being heard and decided together.

2. Both the above appeals are preferred by the appellants challenging the impugned award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, (C.G.) (henceforth, 'the Tribunal) passed in Claim Case No.18/2016.

3. Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.1726 of 2017 has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount and Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.493 of 2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company seeking exoneration from any liability to pay the compensation.

4. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants/claimants are legal heirs of the deceased- Bhagwat Jangde alleging therein that on 07.07.2015, Bhagwat Jangde had gone from Village Nayapara to Village Raikheda along with Balaram Bhatpahri from motorcycle and when both were returning to Village Nayapara on the motorcycle, they were reached near the Semaria Canal Bridge, a vehicle was coming from village Kosamsara bearing registration No.CG-22-AB-5220 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle and caused accident. In the aforesaid accident, Bhagwat Jangde and Balaram suffered grievous multiple injuries on their body. Thereafter, both took treatment from Primary Health Centre, Kasdol and thereafter referred to Raipur for better treatment. During treatment, Bhagwat Jangde died on the same day. Accident was reported to Police Station-Kasdol based upon which crime was registered against the Driver-cum-Owner of the offending vehicle namely Ravindra Kumar. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was also filed before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction.

5. In Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.1726 of 2017, Claimants are widow, children & parents of deceased, filed an application under Sections 165 & 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on different heads.

6. In Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.1726 of 2017, non-applicant No.1, i.e., Driver & Owner of offending vehicle submitted reply to application while denying the pleadings made therein also pleaded that the appellant has grossly exaggerated the amount of compensation. It is further pleaded that Bhagwat Jangde and Balaram Bhatpahri were driving motorcycle under the influence of alcohol and collided with vehicle No. CG-22-AB-5220 parked on the roadside. On the date of accident, the said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company. Thus, there is no negligence on his part and if the appellant is found entitled for any compensation then, non-applicant No.2/ Insurance Company is liable to pay the same.

7. Non-applicant No.2, i.e., Insurance Company has submitted its reply to application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that the vehicle in question was being driven without valid driving license and documents. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation on the above grounds.

8. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the Tribunal held that Bhagwat Jangde aged about 27 years (as per post-mortem Report Ex.A-19) died on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. Breach of policy condition was also not found to be proved. The Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded a sum of Rs.13,43,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation upon Non-applicants, jointly or severally.

9. In Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.493 of 2018, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has challenged impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in relying the fact that the offending vehicle is a commercial vehicle and registered as a transport vehicle (goods vehicle), whi