1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Heard Mr. K. K. Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents-Claimants.

3. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 08.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Compensation Case No. 28 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the claim application of the claimants u/s 166 and has held the appellant liable to compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing i.e. 28.01.2011 till realization.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the only point which is involved in this appeal is whether the deceased who was authorized to drive the vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle, is covered under the insurance policy and if so, to what extent.

5. He submits that the facts in the instant case are not much in dispute. The specific case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal was that the deceased Saurav Ganeriwal was driving Car No. JH 05V 2229 and on 04.02.2009 near Chas More on Purulia Road, in order to save a cow, the car met with an accident and the car turned turtle. Pursuant to the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died during treatment.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the further case of the claimants was that the deceased was a cloth merchant and was earning an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month and was aged about 25 years. The First Information Report was lodged by the owner of the vehicle on 22.02.2009 being Purulia P.S. Case No. 34 of 2009 and the car was insured with the appellant. The claimants were the dependents of the deceased and accordingly they claimed compensation. He further submits that after service of notice, the opposite parties appeared. The opposite party no. 1 owner of the vehicle, did not dispute the contents of the claim application. The Insurance Company, appellant herein, also appeared and filed show cause denying and disputing the maintainability of the claim application itself and totally denying the liability of the Insurance Company.

7. The specific case of the Insurance Company before the learned court below was that the victim himself was driving the vehicle and therefore claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not maintainable. The First Information Report was registered against the victim and the F.I.R. itself was belated and without any justification for delay. The returns on the basis of which it was contended that the deceased had income of Rs. 20,000/- per month, were itself filed after the death of the deceased and no income tax returns/proof of income prior to his death was filed. Accordingly, the deceased came into the category of unnamed driver, who was not covered under the policy. He further submits that a person driving the vehicle with the permission of the insured steps into the shoes of the insured and cannot be treated as 3rd party as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2009 ACJ 2020 (Ningamma and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.).

8. Counsel for the appellant while referring to the impugned judgment and award has submitted that on the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal and all the issues were decided in favor of the claimants: -

(I) Whether the claimants have any cause of action of right to sue and the case is maintainable in its present form?

(II) Whether the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 4/2/2009?

(III) Whether the vehicles were duly insured under the O.P. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Limited and there is any violation of Contract between the insurer and insured?

(IV) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation amount and if so, what should be quantum of compensation?

(V) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as cla