By the Court.—Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The brief facts are that the claimants respondent filed claim petition before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) being M.A.C.P No. 597 of 2012 for the death of Ashok Kumar who died in the motor accident on 2.7.2012. Tribunal after going through the entire record, granted compensation of Rs. 6,63,000/- with interest @ 7% in favour of the claimant respondent.

3. The facts are that the deceased was a cleaner on the bus bearing No. UP-70-BT-5435 when he was going by the said bus, a truck bearing No. UP-70-BT-8548 met with an accident. As far as the claimants are concerned, it is a case of composite negligence. Insurance Company of both the vehicles is appellant herein. Tribunal before whom, matter was filed held that driver of Truck No. UP-70 BT 8548 was negligent.

4. The issue of negligence has not been argued before us.

5. In a recent judgment Apex Court in UPSRTC v. Km. Mamta and others, AIR 2016 SCC 948, held that Appellate Court should decide on every issue and therefore, we propose to decide the issues which have been raised in this appeal.

6. The main submission is that quantum is on a higher side. Insurance company was not supposed to be held liable as the policy did not cover death of cleaner. In UPSRTC v. Km.Mamta (Supra), paragraphs 24 and 27, Court observed as under:

“24. An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V.Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. [See National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar and others, (2000) 10 SCC 198 and State of Punjab and another v. Navdeep Kuur and others, (2004) 13 SCC 680].

27. As observed supra, as a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute. The impugned judgment also does not, in our opinion, satisfy the requirements of Order XX, Rule 4(2) read with Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons. it is for this reason, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court.”

7. Appellant - Insurance Company felt aggrieved by award, and has submitted that deceased was a cleaner and not driver hence not covered by the policy. It is submitted that Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has held that where a person has a job and is above the age of 50 years and if he was a self employed person, no additional sum be awarded towards future prospectus and has therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding additional amount which is contrary to law.

8. Therefore, we decide the issue whether the deceased who was a cleaner was covered by the policy or not and whether the Insurance Company could be held liable to honour the award. This aspect was not even canvassed before the learned Tribunal. However, as it is raised before us, we decide the same.

9. The Tribunal while deciding the issue about liability has held that the Insurance with which the vehicle was insured namely U.P-70-BT 5435, was driven as per the policy conditions. The Insurance Company has not examined anybody to prove breach of policy conditions. It was no where submitted that the cleaner was not covered by the policy. The driver of the vehicle had a proper driving license. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows:

“147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.—

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which—

(a) is issued by a person who is an aut