The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, an owner with an Act Policy only cannot claim compensation for their own death in a motor vehicle accident.

A. Hazarika, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. LA. Talukdar appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. M. Choudhury learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. None appeared for respondent No. 1 inspite of service of notice.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Golaghat in MAC case No.13/99.

3. Necessary facts may be stated herein, in a nutshell

A claim case was filed by the applicant Snit. Usha Rajkhowa claiming compensation on account of death of her husband Yadav Rajkhowa in a Motor vehicle accident. The claimant's case is that on 5.12.98 at about 7 P.M. her husband went to Dergaon market from his house at Dadhara in his Maruti Car bearing No. WB/12/6287. On the way to Dergaon, one truck bearing No. NLA-241 coming from Jorhat side towards Bokakhat in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Maruti car causing the instant death of her husband. She being the wife of the deceased filed the claim petition for an award of Rs. 10 lacs.

4. The deceased Yadav Rajkhowa was the owner of the Maruti car and he himself drove the same at the time of the accident. The car was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The offending truck belongs to M/s. Paramount Industries, Jorhat which was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Golaghat Branch

5. The insurer resisted the claim. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. resisted by contending, inter alia, that the Maruti car was under the valid insurance coverage with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it was an Act Policy and the owner Yadav Rajkhowa paid Rs. 373/- only as premium covering third party risk.

6. It was further contended that for covering his own life risk, the insured paid no additional premium even though there are such provision under separate insurance policy. The insured also did not pay any additional premium for driver and occupants.

7. The contention of the Oriental Insurance Company was that the owner, driver and occupants are never treated as third party and hence, through an Act Policy, the claimant would not be entitled to claim any compensation from their company. The policy conditions were also exhibited by the witnesses adduced on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company. However, none was examined from the side of the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

8. No specific issue was, however, framed on the plea so taken by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and upon recording the evidence adduced by the claimants as well as the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. the learned tribunal awarded as compensation Rs. 13,12,600/- in favour of the claimants/appellants and ordered for recovery of Rs. 6,56,300/- i.e. half of the total amount assessed from the United Insurance Company Ltd. being the insurer of the offending truck No. NLA-241 with an interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the claim petition, further making it clear that the balance amount is to be borne out by the owner itself and as such, the legal representative who are claiming compensation in the case.

9. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that without holding the volume of negligence of the vehicle, the tribunal unilaterally awarded compensation of Rs. 13,12,600/- and ordered the insurer of the truck i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, would pay half of the said amount and that the balance amount shall be borne out by the owner(deceased) himself, i.e. legal representatives of the deceased.

10. The learned Tribunal has failed to determine the fault of the vehicle i.e. which vehicle is responsible and to what extent. Mr. Singh has further submitted that without determining the fault as to w