- (1.) This appeal is directed against an award dated March 7, 2003 in M.A.C. Case No.415 of 1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalpaiguri.
(2.) By the said award, the learned Tribunal was pleased to pass the following: "that the M.A.C. Case No.415 of 1998 under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act is allowed on contest with cost against both the O.Ps. Petitioners do get an award of Rs.2,56,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty six thousand). Petitioner No.1 shall get Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand), petitioner No.2 shall get Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and petitioner no.3 shall get Rs.56,000/-(Rupees fifty six thousand). O.Ps. are directed to pay the compensation by issuing three separate cheques, through this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order failing which claimants should be entitled to get an interest at the rate of 9% (nine per cent) per annum till the date of realization. The cheque in respect of minor petitioner no.2 shall be deposited with any nationalised bank or Post Office in a fixed deposit scheme which will be payable to her on her attaining majority.
(3.) The O.P. No.1 is to be indemnified by O.P. No.2." The Insurance Company has preferred an appeal principally on the following grounds: "(ii) For that the learned Tribunal having come to the finding that Uttam Ganguli, since deceased, was travelling in the involved Private Car No. WGX - 7569, at the time of accident, the Learned Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was not covered by the Policy of insurance as required by the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988. (iii) For that in absence of any finding by the Learned Tribunal that the deceased was a passenger carried for hire or reward in the involved car and the involved car was registered as a Public Service Vehicle, the Learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation against the insurer who was not found by the Learned Tribunal to have assured wider risk of any passenger by the Policy of insurance for the use of the said vehicle in public place. (v) For that the Learned Tribunal ought to have held as the policy of insurance of the offending vehicle was an Act only policy for private use only and insuring only one employee/driver, the victim as a passenger of the said vehicle was not covered by the said policy and the appellant insurer was also not liable to pay any compensation under the said Policy." ;