Lanusungkum Jamir, J.

By this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and award dated 1st April, 2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 17/2013 by which the claim petition filed by the appellant as claimant was dismissed. The brief facts of the case is that the present appellant as claimant had filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of her son F. Lalhriatpuia who died in the vehicular accident at Chanmari-III, Lunglei Mizoram on 16th February, 2012. The accident vehicle (Scooty Rodeo) bearing registration No. MZ-02/A-1862 was driven by the son of the appellant at the time of the accident. The said Scooty was registered in the name of the respondent No. 1 who is also the father of the deceased and the husband of the appellant. The said Scooty was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited having validity from 5th January, 2012-4th January, 2013. The deceased i.e. F. Lalhriatpuia was having a driving licence with validity from 8th March, 2011-7th March, 2013 for non-transport vehicle at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned MACT had framed two issues and examined four claimant witnesses. No witness was produced by the respondent No.2 i.e. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal had thereafter dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was no eyewitness to the alleged accident and there was no evidence to show that the deceased died due to the accident and even if the deceased had died due to the accident, there was no other vehicle involved.

2. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as the vehicle (Scooty Rodeo) was already insured, any person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner and that anyone who had no interest in the subject matter of an insurance can also claim the benefit of the insurance. He, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in coming to the finding that the Insurance Policy being a liability only policy does not cover the deceased who was the rider of the accident vehicle at the time of the accident. He, further submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Policy being a liability only policy would not cover the deceased who was the rider of the Scooter and that as the respondent No. 1 being the father of the deceased and also the husband of the claimant, no claim can be made against each other and the same is contrary to the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is perverse.

3. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no eye-witness to the alleged accident and that there was no evidence to show that the deceased died due to the accident. He submits that the claimant witness No. 2 who is an ASI had conducted the inquiry and visited the spot of the accident and had deposed before the learned Tribunal that on receiving a telephonic information at the Police Station on 16th February, 2012 at about 9.20 p.m., he had left for the accident site with one Constable. When he reached the accident spot, he found the Scooter lying on the road and the rider (deceased) was lying about 1 metre from the Scooter.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submits that the claimant witness No. 2 had also deposed that he had gone to the accident spot and saw that the victim was lying on the black-topped portion of the road and the Scooter was also on the road. The victim was still breathing when they reached the spot of the accident and that the victim had suffered injury in the occipital region of his head and that the victim died 10 minutes after they reached the hospital and that there was no other vehicles at the place where the accident had occurred. He, therefore, submits that this being the dep