The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount even if there was a violation of conditions and could recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle through due procedure.

1. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. B.K. Purkayastha for the appellant (the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’). Also heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1-4 and Mr. S.S. Barooah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. This Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 6.9.2012, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in the MAC Case No. 64/2011.

3. The claimants (respondent Nos. 1-4 herein), preferred the claim petition contending inter-alia that on 26.3.2011, at about 2:30 P.M. while Late Dipak Das along with one Dipen Das was riding by the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AS-04-D/7043, they met with an accident involving the offending vehicle No. AS-04-D/8094 (a Mini Truck). As a result, the victim Dipak Das sustained severe injury and although he was immediately shifted to the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, he succumbed to his injuries on the next day. It was the allegation of the claimants that the accident occurred due to rush and negligent driving of the offending vehicle/Mini Truck and the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased, preferred the claim petition, who were the parents, wife and the minor son of the deceased.

4. The driver and the owner of the Mini Truck did not contest the case, although notice was served upon them. So the case proceeded ex-parte against both of them. The Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle/Mini Truck was insured, contested the case and filing written statement, they denied the allegations and submitted inter-alia that the incident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the Motor Cycle, plied by the deceased person. As usual, the Insurance Company resisted the claim of the claimants. It is also contended that the liability to pay the compensation by the Insurance Company shall be subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the policy, at the time of accident.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following two issues:

(i) Whether Dipak Das died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.03.2011 involving the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-04-D/8094 due to rash and negligent driving or any other fault of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-04-D/8094?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, what shall be the quantum of compensation and by whom among the opposite parties, the compensation shall be paid?

6. In the course of trial, the claimant examined two witnesses and produced some documents. The Insurance Company also examined three witnesses in support of their case.

7. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record and documents produced by both the parties, answered both the issued in favour of the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 6,22,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization; within a period of one month with certain directions that out of the awarded amount, 20% shall be fixed deposited in the name of the minor son of the deceased till his attaining majority and 30% of the awarded sum shall be fixed deposited in the name of wife of the deceased for one year. The rest of the awarded amount was directed to be paid to the wife and the mother of the deceased in equal share, by account payee cheques.

8. Now the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the aforesaid order on two counts. Firstly, it is contended that although there was collusion between two vehicles, the learned Tribunal has fixed the liability only against the offending vehicle i.e. the mini truck but not against the vehicle (the Motor Cycle) which was driven by the deceased. On the next, it is contended that the owner of the offending vehic