The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurer arises when the liability of the insured has been found, and acquittal of a driver in a criminal trial does not absolve the insurer from liability.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, which insured the truck (Tata Ace). Also heard Ms. H. Kristazi, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants and Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8/Insurance Company, which insured the Scooty driven by the deceased. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 9.

2. As per the Order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Court, notice was deemed to be complete against the respondent No. 6, the owner of the truck (Tata Ace). Respondent No. 7 is the husband of the respondent No.1, father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and sister of the respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 7 is the person, who died in the vehicular accident and in respect of which the claim petition had been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 before the MACT, Aizawl. Respondent No. 9 is the Driver of the Truck (Tata Ace), which dashed into the Scooty driven by the deceased respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 6 is the owner of the truck (Tata Ace).

3. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, which insured the Tata Ace, challenging the compensation amount of Rs. 78,60,950/- awarded by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 12/2017, vide Judgment & Award dated 26.04.2019, in favour of the respondents/claimants No. 1 to 5.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased S. Vanchhua, age 39 years was driving a Scooty on 01.03.2013, when one Tata Ace bearing Registration No. MZ-03 4262 driven by the respondent No. 9 dashed the Scooty from behind, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The pillion rider P. Hama survived the accident.

5. A claim petition was submitted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties came to a finding that the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace, when it dashed against the Scooty. As the deceased was a regular Government Teacher, working in Govt. Middle School, Meisatla, Siaha, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 78,60,950/- to the claimants, the break-up of which, is as follows:-

"As such the compensation is as follows:-

The learned Tribunal also directed that Rs. 10 lakhs each should be put in fixed deposits in favour of the 3 (three) minor children of the deceased in any nationalised Bank, which could be withdrawn after the 3 (three) minor children attained majority.

6. Being aggrieved by impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.04.2019 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 12/2017, the appellant has made a challenge to the impugned Judgment & Award on the ground that rash and negligent act on the part of the Driver of the Tata Ace vehicle had not been proved.

7. Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are 2 (two) Police reports in respect of the above case, which are contradictory to one another. He submits that in one Police report, the cause of accident has been speculated to be due to rash and negligent act on the part of the Driver of the Tata Ace, while in the other Police report, the cause of the accident has been attributed to brake failure of the Tata Ace vehicle. The learned counsel submits that as there is no proof that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the Driver of the Tata Ace, compensation could not have been awarded under Section 166 of the M.V Act, 1988.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal could not have