( 1. ) THE appellant/insurer has come forward to this Court with this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 27-2-2006 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mandla, whereby the claim of the respondents filed under section 163-A of the Act has been awarded against the appellant/insurer for the sum of Rs.2,77,520/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. from 7-7-2003.

( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondents-claimants herein filed their claim petition under section 163-A of the Act contending that the husband of the respondent No. 1 while the father of applicants No. 2 and 3 namely; Purushottam Patel, was driving his own tractor on 9-5-2003 having the Engine No. B.O. 8061 and chasis No. SLO-301-SA-35951, collide with a bridge of some canal and met an accident resultantly, he sustained the injuries and consequently died. As per further averments, the deceased was working as Post Master in the Postal Department of Union of India and being agriculturist was also having the income from the agriculture. On receiving the information of such accident, a Crime No. 215/03 for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Out Post Anjania, and corpus of the deceased was sent to hospital for post-mortem, the same was carried out. Due to death of said registered owner of the tractor, no charge-sheet was filed in the matter. With these averments without showing any negligence on the part of the deceased, the present claim is preferred on behalf of respondents against the appellant/insurer with whom the alleged Tractor was insured for the compensation of Rs.17 lacs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

In reply of the appellant, by denying the facts stated in the claim petition regarding alleged accident, in addition, it is stated that such tractor was driven by Purushottam Patel, contrary to the terms of policy without having duly and effective driving licence. Besides this, the claim is also objected on the ground of tenability before the Tribunal under section 163-A of the Act. It is stated that the deceased being insured and registered owner of the vehicle as per terms of the Insurance Policy, his legal representatives, the respondents are not entitled to get any award under the provision of section 163-A of the Act from the Tribunal.

( 3. ) AFTER framing the issues, the evidence was recorded by the Tribunal, on appreciation the claim of the respondent has been awarded against the appellant for the sum as mentioned above. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has come forward to this Court with this appeal.

( 4. ) SHRI Rakesh Jain, learned appearing counsel of the appellant after taking me through pleadings, evidence, exhibited documents and the impugned award of the Tribunal argued that the impugned claim petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the Tribunal under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. As per terms and condition of the Insurance Policy or the offending tractor, the deceased being registered owner and the insured person of such tractor, his legal representatives did not have any authority to file the claim petition under section 163-A of the Act for compensation of death of their predecessor said Purushottam Patel, who himself driven the tractor and met the alleged accident in which sustained the injuries and died. In support of his contention, he also referred the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi and others, reported in 2008(5) SCC 736 and of Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2009 (13) SCC 710. By referring the insurance policy; he also said that in any case, the risk of the deceased was not covered under such policy. With these submissions he prayed for setting the impugned awa