JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Ms. Moajungla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Meyiwabang Ao, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 2.

This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 04.05.2020, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 151/2016, whereby an amount of Rs.12,79,600/- was adjudged as the just and fair compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after, in short "the Act").

2. The grounds of objection in the instant appeal are two-fold: First that the driver in question did not have a valid Driving License to drive the HMV transport vehicle and as such, the insurance company, i.e. the appellant is not liable to be saddled with the liability as has been done by the impugned award. The second ground of objection is the compensation so awarded cannot be a just and fair compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the Act as the award passed is inflated and exorbitant.

3. The facts of the instant case is that on 01.02.2016, at 5:00 P.M. the son of the claimant, one Kerito (since deceased) was travelling by a vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-03/A-2322 (Mini Truck) employed as a handyman of the said truck. The said truck met with an accident due to loss of control of the vehicle and resultantly, the son of the claimant received grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. It is the case of the claimant in the claim petition that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and he was the only earning member in the family and at the time of his accident, he was only 18 years old and on the basis thereof, claimed a compensation of Rs.8,08,000/-.

4. The owner of the vehicle, who is the respondent No. 2 herein filed his written statement stating that the vehicle met with the accident on 01.02.2016 and the said vehicle was driven by the opposite party No. 2, who is the respondent No. 3 herein. It has been specifically mentioned that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant insurance company vide policy No. 200208/31/14/6300002188 having its validity from 06.02.2015 to 05.02.2016. It was also mentioned that the vehicle in question was driven by the respondent No. 3 herein, who had a valid driving license.

5. The Appellant insurance company had also filed its written statement, whereby the death of the deceased was disputed. Though it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant insurance company at that relevant point of time, but it was stated that the liability of the appellant company is specifically confined under the terms and conditions of the insurance. It was also mentioned that there is a doubt as regards to whether the deceased died out of the said accident caused by the said Mini truck or was it in a car accident. At this point of time, it is relevant to mention that to the said written statement the insurance policy of the company was enclosed, wherein the gross vehicle weight of the said vehicle in question was shown as 5,700 kilos and the unladen weight as 2,700 kilos.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed by the Tribunal below and the same, for the sake of convenience are quoted herein below:-

"1. Whether the deceased Kerito died in vehicular accident on 01.02.2016 involving vehicle bearing Regd. No. NL-03/A-2322(Mini Truck)?

2. Whether the deceased was the handyman of the vehicle involved in the accident alleged to have taken place on 01.02.2016? If so, whether the liability of the insurer of the vehicle is subjected to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?

3. Whether the vehicle was having all requisite vehicular documents and was