The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance policy covered the risk of gratuitous passengers, and the insurance company was obligated to comply with the tribunal's award.

S.P. Wangdi, J.

1. The two appeals have been taken up together for disposal by this common judgment as the issues involved in them are the same.

M.A.C. Appeal No. 1 of 2009

In M.A.C. Appeal No. 1 of 2009 the Appellant, who is the Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Gangtok, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, dated 19-5-2008 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 33 of 2006.

2. The facts of the case material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that on 5-2-2005, the deceased Jai Kant Dixit was travelling by a Maruti Alto Car along with some other persons from Kaluk, West Sikkim to Gangtok, East Sikkim, after attending a marriage ceremony. On the way, the vehicle met with an accident at a place called Charcharey Bhir on the Jorethang Melli Road, South Sikkim, resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. The Respondents 1 and 2 who are the wife and son of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Appellant in the present case and the owner of the vehicle who is the present Respondent No. 3, for award of death compensation of Rs. 18,10,052:00. The claim was contested primarily by the Appellant here who was the Respondent No. 1 before the learned trial Court by filing a written objection to the claim petition substantially on the following grounds:

(i) The driver of the accident vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident;

(ii) The claim petition was not maintainable and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy had been grossly violated as the vehicle in question registered as a private vehicle was used for the purpose of hire and reward at the time when the accident took place;

(iii) There being neither a statutory liability nor any contractual obligation on the part of the Appellant to pay the compensation or to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, no liability could be fastened on the Appellant, and that, if at all the petition would be maintainable only against the opposite party No. 2 (the Respondent No. 3 in this appeal), the owner of the vehicle in question.

Apart from the above, some formal objections had been taken in the written objections which were not pressed before the tribunal and are also immaterial and irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.

3. The Respondent No. 3 who was the owner of the vehicle and impleaded as the Respondent No. 2 before the Claims Tribunal in her written objection, simply stated that the accident vehicle had indeed been insured with the Appellant.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Claims Tribunal framed two issues which are as under:

1. Whether the deceased (late Jai Kant Dixit) died on 5-2-2005 due to motor accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. SK-02 A/0457 at Charcharey Bhir, near Jorethang Bazar, South Sikkim?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation, and if so, who is liable for the same?

5. It appears that the Respondent No. 2, as the claimant No. 2 before the learned Tribunal, had entered into the witness box and deposed on the facts of the case and exhibited all relevant documents including the Certificate of Insurance/Insurance Policy as Ext. 12 with the object to substantiate the fact that the deceased Jai Kant Dixit died on 5-2-2005 due to motor accident involving the accident vehicle and that the vehicle was indeed insured with the Appellant and that it belonged to the Respondent No. 3. In his cross-examination, no material contradictions were brought out on behalf of the Appellant and his evidence remained unshaken leading to the tribunal deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of the Respondents.

6. It is quite significant to note that although in its written objection, the Appellant had denied the claims and made certain assertions, substance of which have been set out herei