P.K. Musahary, J.

1. This is an insurer's appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2003 rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dimapur in MAC Case No. 37 of 1998 awarding compensation of Rs. 5,23,800/- in favour of the claimant (wife of the deceased) against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4, insurer of the vehicle directing the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dariaganj, New Delhi-2, through its Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Dimapur, Nagaland to pay the award to the claimant within 30 (thirty) days from the issue of the order, failing to comply with, another 9% interest shall be awarded from the date of filing the claim petition till payment.

2. The facts are very short. The husband of the claimant went to Delhi with one Sri Paban Boro (driver) sometime in the month of January, 1993. On 19.01.1993, the claimant's husband purchased a used Maruti Car bearing registration No. DAG-4351 from Shri Ashok Arora. On 24.01.1993, while the claimant's husband was coming in the said Maruti Car driven by Sri Paban Boro towards Nagaland, on reaching Lucknow the said Maruti Car met with an accident and the claimant's husband received serious injuries and was admitted in the Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Lucknow. He succumbed to his injuries on 28.01.93. At the time of his death, the deceased was serving under the Government of Nagaland as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Kohima in Nagaland drawing salary of Rs. 4,700/- per month. The wife of the deceased/present respondent No. 1 filed petition claiming Rs. 6, 71,000/- in total before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nagaland, Dimapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the M. V. Act', which was registered as MAC Case No. 37 of 1998. The insurer as opposite parties contested the claim case by filing written statement denying the liability to pay compensation to the claimant mainly on the ground that the policy is a 3rd party policy meant for indemnifying the loss or damage of the 3rd party within the meaning of MV Act. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether there was accident of vehicle registered No. DAG-4251 (Maruti) on 24.01.1993 and late Dhurba Rai died due to the said accident?

2. Whether there was a subsisting contract of Insurance between Dhurba Rai and the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 on the date of accident?

3. Whether the vehicle was having the valid documents and was driven by a duly licenced driver?

4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, the amount and to be paid by whom?

3. Except examining herself as PW 1, the claimant examined no other witness to prove her case. The driver Sri Paban Boro who was driving the accident vehicle was not produced to prove the fact of accident. Moreover, no police report and the death certificate was produced. The post mortem report was also not produced by the claimant before the learned tribunal during the trial. It appears from the record that the said driver disappeared and remained absconding and his presence could not be procured to give evidence on the said motor vehicle accident and death of the claimant's husband.

4. From the impugned judgment and order it does not appear that the learned tribunal, except issues No. 3 and 4, indulged itself in discussing the other issues namely No. 1 and 2. There is no finding on issue No. 1. It was of course, not possible to give any finding as the driver was absent and the police report was not made available before the learned tribunal and the Officer-In-Charge of the Sitapur Police Station under whose jurisdiction the alleged accident took place, did not appear inspite of issuing summons to him. The only document supporting the fact of hospitalization and death of the claimant's husband is the Ext. P/5, issued by the Gandhi Memorial Associ