Point of Law: As per Section 147 (b) of M.V. Act, 1988, a policy of insurance is required to be indemnify insured against any liability incurred by him against bodily injured or any third party

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. This is an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, in MAC Case No. 499/2014, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd., a Government. of India Undertaking with its Registered & Head Office at Middleton Street, Kolkata, and its Regional Office at G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 5 in MAC Case No. 499/2014 by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/claimants claiming compensation for the death of the husband of the respondent No. 1 in a motor vehicle accident on 31.03.2014, at around 8.20 P.M., at Pachim Senchowa Agriculture Tiniali under Nagaon Police Station in the Nagaon District of Assam. The husband of the respondent No. 1/claimant died, as a result of motor vehicle accident on 31.03.2014, while the deceased was proceeding from Raha towards his house by riding his motorcycle, bearing Registration No. AS-02/L-3625, as a pillion rider. The accident occurred when he reached near Pachim Senchowa Agriculture Tiniali when suddenly a vehicle, being Registration No. AS-01/T-6214 (Indica DLS), which was coming from Nagaon side, knocked at front side of the motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, the husband of the respondent sustained grievous injuries on his person and finally succumbed to his injuries.

4. The learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, however, disregarded the materials placed before him and was pleased to pass the judgment and award on 21.03.2017 for total amount of Rs. 9,81,694/-by directing the present appellant to pay 50% of the award amount.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, dated 21.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, in MAC Case No. 499/2014, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds, amongst others:

(i) That the impugned judgment and award dated 21.03.2017, passed in MAC Case No. 499/2014 is bad in law and facts and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

(ii) That the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, ought to have rejected the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 as not maintainable insofar as the appellant is concerned.

(iii) That the judgment and award dated 21.03.2017, passed in MAC Case No. 499/2014, is bad in law inasmuch as the same is against the settled position of law that the insured/owner of the vehicle is not a third party insofar as the vehicle is concerned. The deceased being the owner of the vehicle, insured by the appellant, was not a third party and therefore, the appellant ought not to have been held liable for compensation by the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon. The learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, failed to appreciate the settled position of law that the owner of the vehicle is not a third party within the meaning of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and as such, the owner of the vehicle is not entitled to claim any benefit or compensation as a third party before the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon.

(iv) That the findings of the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, that the owner of the vehicle is entitled to compensation under a policy of insurance as a third party is totally perverse and is against the intention of the statute and various time-honoured interpretations of definition of third party. As per Section 147 (b) of the M.V. Act, the policy of insurance is required to be indemnify the insured against any liability incurred by him against bodily injury of any third party. This provision of Act, therefore, clearly spells out that the insured/owner of the vehicle cannot be a beneficiary under this provision of Act.

Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the