JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the claimants [respondent Nos. 1 to 3] and Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the owner [respondent No. 4].

2. The present appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 22.09.2015, passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur, in Compensation Case No. 99 of 2010.

3. The compensation case was filed by widow and children of the deceased, who died in the road accident. It has been alleged that vehicle was owned by brother of the deceased, however, it was managed by deceased and deceased was earning Rs. 13,000/- per month. It has further been alleged that deceased went to Ranchi with friends, however, later on the pretext of illness of grandmother of Harish, he was taken to Bihar and was murdered. It has been further alleged that at the time of accident, vehicle was insured with the insurance company and insurance policy was comprehensive policy and regarding income of the deceased, PAN Card and IT Return have been filed.

4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company has submitted that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding the claim to the extent of Rs. 6,24,000/-, as the same has been awarded without appreciating the legal proposition as well as the facts of the case. He has submitted that the learned tribunal has ignored the fact that the deceased did not have any driving license, nor the name of any driver has been mentioned or driving license of such driver has been produced. He further submitted that a petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed, in which, the insurance company was exonerated to pay the amout, however, owner was directed to comply the said statutory provision. He further submitted that the learned tribunal failed to consider that under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal in deciding the Claim Case No. 77 of 2008 has exonerated the appellant-insurance company from payment of any compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of compensation has been fixed upon the owner insured alone and as such, it is not open for the tribunal to pass different order in separate, when the issue and facts are same depending on similar facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the nature of death of the deceased will not come under the category of accident arising out of Motor Vehicles Act, nor any alleged accident or death has taken place due to looting and snatching of the vehicle, as such the claims tribunal has wrongly assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. He has further submitted that at best insurance company can comply the order and the recovery may kindly be allowed to be recovered from the owner.

5. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Dhela Rani v. Deepak Prasad, reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Jhar 436 and submits that the Division Bench of this Court in a case of murder has not allowed the claim application and award was held to be a good one, considering that learned tribunal has not awarded the compensation considering that it was a simplicitor murder.

6. On the violation of the policy, he relied in the case of New Indian Assurance Company v. Sadanand Mukhi, reported in 2008 Supreme (SC) 1910 and submitted that in this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that there is clear distinction between statutory policy and contractual policy and the insurance company would have no liability towards the injured suffered by the deceased, who was a pillion rider.

7. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company has submitted that the award passed by the learned tribunal may kindly be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as ow