JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli for the respondents/ claimants.

2. It is seen that the respondents/ claimants have also filed Cross Objection No. 1/2019 and therefore, both the appeal as well as the cross objection are taken up for final disposal.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 04.04.2014 at around 3 pm, one truck bearing Registration No. NL-02/G-2073, belonging to the respondent No. 4 and driven by one, Sh. Ram Prakash which was proceeding from Sairang towards Aizawl, ran over the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 3, who was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. MZ-01/J-1904 and he succumbed to his injury. The deceased at the relevant time was working as Driver Grade-I in Mizoram Agriculture Marketing Corporation Limited (MAMCO), a Government of Mizoram undertaking and was earning a sum of Rs. 34,080/- as his monthly salary. The truck was validly insured with the appellant Insurance Company and accordingly, the respondents/ claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (the Tribunal) on 11.07.2016.

4. Against the claim, the appellant Insurance Company as Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case by filing their written statement contending inter alia that the claim was not maintainable, there was no cause of action in favour of the claimant and it was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. As for the owner of the truck involved, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 1, she failed to contest the claim.

5. The respondent No. 3 herein in support of her claim examined herself as claimant Witness No. 1 and the Police Officer who conducted the examination as claimant witness No. 2. Both the witnesses were cross examined by the appellant Insurance Company whereafter, the learned Tribunal vide Judgment and Award dated 23.02.2018 came to a finding that it was a case of contributory negligence and accordingly fixed the contributory negligence of the parties i.e. the deceased and the truck in the ratio of 50:50. Consequently, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 26,73,808/- alongwith 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application to the respondents/ claimants. Aggrieved, the appellant Insurance Company is before this Court through the instant appeal while the respondents/ claimants also being aggrieved with the manner in which the apportionment of the contributory negligence has been made by the Tribunal has filed the cross objection.

6. Mr. Lalremtluanga, the learned counsel referring to the memorandum of appeal submits that the main grounds of challenge of the impugned Judgment and Award can broadly be summarized as follows:-

(1) The insurance policy said to have been issued by the appellant Insurance Company exhibited as Exhibit C-11 is only a fake and fabricated document.

(2) The evidence of the Investigating Officer clearly shows that it was the deceased who was at fault and therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company.

(3) That the impugned Award is highly excessive and not justified. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation under the conventional heads i.e. loss of love and affection, loss of expectation of life and has taken the gross salary of the deceased for calculating the compensation in violation of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

7. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel on the other hand submits that the appellant Insurance Company has not taken permission under Section 170 of the MV Act and therefore, they cannot raise the grounds of appeal as submitted by the counsel for the appellant. He