This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 25.11.2014 delivered in T.S.(MAC) 382 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1.

2. Without projecting any direct challenge against the basic fact of the accident, the appellant has raised two pronged objections viz.,

(i) When the accident occurred for negligence of the insured being the owner of the vehicle can he be entitled to get compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act ?

(ii) Whether the insurer in such circumstances can be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation, if any?

3. It has not been disputed by the appellant that on 20.05.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening, while one Dilip Bhowmik was returning home from Kathaltali by driving his vehicle bearing No TR-01-U-0530, he met an accident on the bye-pass under Amtali Police Station. From the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was rushed to the TMC & Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital, Hapania, but from there he was referred to the AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. The Medical Officer of that hospital declared him dead. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 43 years and he was carrying on business of coal. His monthly income has been asserted to be Rs.15,000/- per month. The dependants and the legal heirs filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs.68,15,000/- as the compensation from the insurer, the appellant herein. The appellant by filing the written statement seriously disputed the claim. On the face of such objection, the following issues were framed by the tribunal for adjudication of the claim:

“(1) Did Dilip Bhowmik sustain any injury on 20.05.2012 at about 7.30 near the Agartala Railway Bridge (Amtali Byepass) in a Road Traffic Accident involving the Car bearing no.TR-01-U-0530 (Indica) driven by him being the owner resulting in his death the same day?

(2) Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?”

4. The issue No.1, as reproduced, has been answered in favour of the claimant-respondent. In the appeal that finding has not been questioned at all. But the finding of the tribunal in respect of the issue No.2, as reproduced, has been seriously challenged. While deciding the issue No.2, the tribunal has observed as under:

“It is to be decided now whether the Insurance Company, the sole O.P. is liable to pay the compensation. On the point, in the cross examination of the claimant no.1, it is suggested that as her son was the owner-cum-driver of the car, they are not entitled to get any compensation. In this regard, Sri Joydeep Ghosh, Administrative Officer of the National Insurance Company Ltd., Agartala adduced his evidence reiterating the same. In the cross examination, he has admitted that the policy in question was a package policy in the name of Dilip Bhowmik valid from 24.08.2011 to 23.08.2012. This is also evident from the policy itself proved by the claimants marked Exbt.2.

On the point, learned Counsel for the claimants has referred to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Bala Krishnan and another reported as (2013) 1 SCC 731 and a decision of the Sikkim High Court between the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Smti Madansha Sherpa and others reported as 2014(2) T.A.C. 826 (Sikkim). The Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is a detailed one in which different Judgments namely, Asha Ranicase, Jhuma Saha case, Laxmi Narain Dhut case and Meena Bariyal’ case are discussed where the Insurance Policies were Statutory policy/Act policy. The Hon’ble Apex Court from para 19 undertook discussion as to the position of insurance when the policy is a comprehensive policy which is also called package policy. After making elaborate discussion down the paragraphs, the Apex Court ca