The driver of the offending vehicle does not qualify as a third party under an Act policy; thus, the insurance company is not liable for compensation.

1. Present is an appeal preferred by the appellant insurance company under S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 21 of 1998.

2. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that the father of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and son of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Shiv Shankar Minj, was working as a driver of the jeep bearing registration No. CPL 9315 which was owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured by the appellant insurance company. The jeep met with an accident on 16.2.1993 while being driven by Shiv Shankar from Bhatgaon to Jawar - nagar on the instructions of respondent No. 1. As a result of the accident, the driver of the said jeep, namely, Shiv Shankar Minj died. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 filed a claim application under S.166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur which was registered as Motor Accident Claim Case No. 21 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs. 22,00,000 from respondent No. 1 and the appellant jointly or separately.

3. During the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle and insurance company entered appearance before the Tribunal and submitted their respective reply categorically admitting the employment of the deceased Shiv Shanker Minj as a driver of respondent No. 1 and the accident and also admitting the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident which was being driven by the deceased was insured by the appellant insurance company. Though the employment, the accident, the death of the deceased and the insurance of the vehicle by the appellant are not disputed, the insurance company in its written statement had categorically taken a stand that the policy which was taken by the owner of the vehicle for the said jeep was a third party insurance where the risk of the driver of the insured vehicle was not covered and that extra premium for covering the risk of driver was not paid. It was challenged by insurance company that at the time of accident, the deceased was not having a valid licence for driving the jeep nor had the jeep proper registration and as there is a violation of the policy condition, the insurance company shall not be liable for any sort of compensation payable to the claimants.

4. Based on the pleadings that came before the court, the Tribunal framed two specific issues:
(1) Whether in the accident that took place on 16.2.1993 jeep No. CPL 9315 which was being driven by the deceased went out of control and fell in a ditch resulting in the death of the deceased?
(2) Whether the respondent No. 1 and the appellant were jointly and separately responsible for making the payment to the claimants and if yes, to what extent and from whom?

5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence which have come on record vide impugned award dated 20.10.2000, reached the conclusion that admittedly on 16.2.1993, jeep No. CPL 9315 was being driven by the deceased on the instructions of respondent No. 1 and in the course of his employment, he met with an accident resulting in his death. The F.I.R. was also produced before the Tribunal on the basis of which the accident and the death of the deceased were proved.

6. As regards issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the relationship of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 with the deceased is not in dispute and