Paran Kumar Phukan, J.

These appeals have arisen out of the MAC Case No. 43 of 2009 between the same parties involving common questions of law and fact and as such, both these appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision for the sake of convenience and brevity and it is proposed to dispose of the appeals with a common judgment. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are called claimant and insurer.

2. The MAC Appeal No. 7 (K)/2015 has been preferred by the insurer New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the respondents who are the appellants in MAC Appeal No. 5(K) of 2015.

3. The claim case depicts a strange picture, absurdities looming large on the face of records The claimant knocked the doors of the learned Member, Motor Claims Tribunal, Dimapur u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of her husband, a professional doctor, in a road traffic accident involving a vehicle owned by her minor daughter and the daughter of the deceased and insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. The deceased doctor himself was driving the vehicle and was proceeding towards Shillong from Dimapur to bring his family but unfortunately near the Nambar Reserve Forest the vehicle dashed against a roadside tree allegedly due to bursting of a rear wheel tyre, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injures on the way to hospital. The fault of the accident has been attributed to the caretaker of the vehicle, who was looking after the vehicle, on behalf of the minor daughter.

4. The factum of death of the deceased in the accident involving vehicle No. N L-07/0096 (Wagon R) which was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has not been disputed. There is also no dispute that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and it dashed against a roadside tree due to sudden bursting of a rear wheel tyre. It is also not disputed that the deceased was a professional doctor and at the relevant time he was working in a nursing home at Dimapur. 'Hie vehicle involved in the accident at the relevant time was insured with a package policy and additional premium of Rs. 25/- was paid covering the risk of one employee of the owner. The policy has been produced during the trial before the Tribunal and no dispute has been raised regarding the risk coverage of the policy.

5. The insurer resisted the claim of the claimant on the ground that the deceased himself being the owner, the insurance company has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant. The insurance company also took the plea that there was no risk coverage for the injury or death of the deceased who was neither a driver nor an employee of the owner. It was further pleaded that the petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable inasmuch as no rash and negligent driving has been established in the case.

6. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur allowed the claim of the claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.25,83,500/-vide judgment dated 7.7.2009 against which the insurer preferred appeal before the High Court and the High Court vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2010 passed in MAC Appeal No. 11 (K)/2009 remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal with the directions to arrive at a finding regarding negligence, purchase of the offending vehicle by the grandmother of the respondent Ms. Nidhi Mall and to prove the salary certificate of the deceased with a further direction to dispose of the case within a period of 3 months. The learned Tribunal after remand of the case allowed the parties to adduce further evidence of witnesses and thereafter, vide judgment and order dated 13.05.2015 awarded compensation of Rs. 43,63,500/in favour of the claimant. This judgment of the Tribunal has been assai led by the claimant seeking enhancement of the awarded amount and by the insurer for setting side the award on the ground that the insurer