JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there-in-after referred to as 'the Act' or as 'the Act of 1988'] by the insurer, is directed against the award dated 30.4.2015, as made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong in MAC Case No. 101 of 2007.

2. Briefly put, the relevant-back-ground aspects of the matter are as follows: The respondent No. 2 of this appeal Smti. Miatmon Suchiang preferred the claim application aforesaid with the submissions that she was the wife of (late) Shri Barwon Langstang, who was about 40 years of age and was a driver by occupation. The claimant-respondent No. 2 asserted in the claim petition that her deceased husband was driving a Tourist Taxi of Tata Indica make, bearing registration No. ML 5 D 2322, which was owned by the respondent No. 1 of this appeal Shri Wansalan Lakai. The claimant submitted that her husband went missing along with the said vehicle since 6.10.2003 and then, the dead body of her husband was recovered in a decomposed condition on 10.10.2003 at Purging Village near NH-44 in a Jungle but the said vehicle was not found; and a case was registered at Madanriting Police Station as Case No. 74 (10) 2003 under Section 364, IPC. It was also submitted that as per the post-mortem examination of the decomposed body of deceased, the cause of death was shock and asphyxia following strangulation by the neck.

3. The claimant further submitted that she was initially advised to make a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1929 but, due to irregular functioning of the Authority under the said Act, she was unable to do so and then, she was advised to file the present claim application under the Act of 1988. While pointing out that the present appellant was the insurer of the vehicle in question and while further stating that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000 (six thousand) per month, the claimant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,10,000 (ten lakh ten thousand) for herself and the family.

4. The present respondent No. 1, who was arrayed as opposite party No. 1 in the claim petition, admitted in his reply that he was the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. ML 5 D 2322 and was having the permit to ply the vehicle in the States of Meghalaya, Assam and Mizoram. The respondent No. 1, however, submitted that the driver was having control over the vehicle in question and was plying according to the choice of area as per his convenience; and used to inform telephonically about any stay/halt, depending on availability of communication. The respondent No. 1 further submitted that there was no communication from the driver since 6.10.2003 and then, the decomposed body of the driver was recovered on 10.10.2003. While asserting and reiterating that he was not to be held responsible towards compensation, the respondent No. 1 took multifarious pleadings to the effect that the deceased driver was fully responsible for the incident in question and the owner was not in any way responsible therefor and hence, there was no cause of action for claiming compensation against him. The respondent No. 1 further submitted that when the vehicle in question and the driver went missing, the matter was reported to the police verbally and after the incident, the matter was reported to the creditor bank as also to the insurer for necessary action. The respondent No. 1 also maintained that he was holding a valid insurance policy, and hence, the Insurance Company was liable for compensation, if any.

5. The present appellant-insurer, in its reply, denied the maintainability of claim application as also the entitlement of the claimant-respondent No. 2 to seek any compensation with the averments, inter alia, as under:

"(2) That there is no cause of action against the answering opposite party inasmuch as there is nothing on the record to show that the death occurs due to negligence or default of the drivers while using the vehicle in public place.

(3) That the