JUDGMENT(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by the appellant-insurer assails the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned 1^st Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jajpur (In short “the tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 97 of 2019 directing the appellant-insurer who was OP No.2 in MAC Case No. 97 of 219 to pay a sum of Rs.16,93,315/ to the claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 5 towards compensation for the loss of life of their sole bread earner Nageswar Jena(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died in a motor vehicular accident.

2. The facts in precise are that at about 2:30 am on the intervening night of 21/22.04.2019, the deceased while returning from Jajpur to Mangalpur after attending a musical function, near Dudhisahi, one Tata ACE vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-34-H-8666 (offending vehicle) being driven rash and negligently by its driver caused accident resulting in deceased sustaining serious head and other injuries and accordingly, he was shifted to Mangalpur CHC and then referred to DHH, Jajpur, but ultimately, declared dead at DHH, Jajpur. It was also stated by the claimants that the accident was reported to the police and accordingly, Mangalpur PS Case No. 93 of 2019 corresponding to CT Case No. 408 of 2019 was registered. On this accident, R-1 to R-5 being the claimants have approached the learned tribunal in an application U/S. 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the loss of life of the deceased in motor vehicular accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. In such application for compensation, the claimant has averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and he was contributing his entire income to his family and, therefore, they are entitled to compensation for the accidental death of the deceased for loss of dependency and damages.

2.1. On filing of the claim, the learned tribunal issued notice to the OP-cum-owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, but the OP No.1-cum-R-6 neither filed any written statement nor contested the claim, however, OP No.2 who is the appellant herein-cum- insurance company filed its written statement denying its liability for paying compensation to the claimants-R- 1 to R-5. In addition to successfully approaching the learned tribunal to take all the defences as available to the owner in an application U/S.170 of the Act which was allowed, appellant-cum-OP No.2 claims that it is not contractually liable for indemnifying R-6-cum-OP No.1 for violation of policy conditions.

3. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal stuck five issues and accordingly, allowed the parties to lead evidence. In support of their claim, the R-1 to R-5-cum-claimants examined three witnesses vide PW1 to PW3 and relied upon 11 documents under Ext. 1 to 11 as against oral evidence of one witness and documentary evidence of three documents under Ext.A to C. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment by holding the accident to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle awarded compensation to the claimants indicated supra and directed the appellant- insurer to satisfy the award being contractually liable to indemnify the owner. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr.Somnath Roy, learned counsel for the appellant raises mainly three points to dispute the award; (i) the deceased being the gratuitous passenger, the claimants are not entitled to compensation; (ii) the offending vehicle was overloaded in violation to the policy conditions and (iii) the quantum of compensation is quite high and exorbitant because the learned tribunal has taken the minimum wage for 30 days instead of 26 days. None appears for the respondents despite valid service of notic