The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the liability of the insurer under Sec. 149(1) of the M.V. Act and the requirement for a personal accident insurance cover for the owner of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

1. Both the appeals involve common question of facts and law were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that on 3.6.2013 at about 11.30 A.M. while Rahas Bihari Samal was returning to his house from Thermal market by the auto riskshaw bearing registration number OR-19-A-4823 with his driver Alekha Bhutia, the auto riskshaw dashed against the backside of another auto bearing registration number OR-19-P-7906 which was parked on the left side of the road. Due to accident, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. With this factual scenario, the dependants of the deceased filed MAC Case No. 13 of 2014 under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("M.V. Act") before the learned 3rd M.A.C.T. Talcher claiming compensation of Rs. 14,60,000/-. The claimants assert that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto bearing registration number OR-19-A-4823. The deceased was earning Rs. 14000/- per month. He was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. The offending auto was validly insured with the insurance company. The driver of the offending auto had valid driving licence on the date of accident.

3. The opposite party-insurance company entered contest and filed a written statement denying the liability. It was stated that the deceased was the owner of the offending auto riskshaw. He was not a third party and as such, the claim case is not maintainable.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck five issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants had examined three witnesses and on their behalf, fourteen documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party-insurance company. On an anatomy of pleadings and evidence on record, learned Tribunal came to hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto riskshaw. The policy of the offending vehicle is a comprehensive policy. The opposite party-insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Held so, it awarded an amount of Rs. 10,58,000/- on 16.9.2015 and directed the insurance company to pay the same with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Assailing the award, the insurer has filed MACA No. 1358 of 2015. The claimants have filed MACA No. 1425 of 2015 for enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the insurance company and Mr. Dhananjaya Mund on behalf of Mr. Sunil Kumar Panda, learned counsel for the claimants.

6. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the insurance company argued with vehemence that as per Sec. 149(1) of the M.V. Act, the liability against the appellant can be enforced only when the award is obtained against the owner/insured. The owner had not paid any premium of personal accident cover for himself. He had paid premium of Rs. 50/- for personal accident to the passengers under which the maximum liability of the insurer towards passengers is one lakh. The deceased being the owner of the auto riskshaw and not a passenger, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunitra Rathi and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 365, Dhanraj vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2004) 8 SCC 553, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meera Bai and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 174, Ningamma and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710, New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others, (2009) AIR SC 1788 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Balakrishnan and Another, (2013) AIR SC 473.

7. Per contra, Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the vehicle was registered as passenger carrying commercial vehicle and was duly insured with the appellant. The policy in question is a comprehensive package policy. Due to rash and negligent driving