Page No.# 1/9 GAHC020005952025 2025:GAU-NL:557 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : MACApp./19/2025 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED ORIENTAL HOUSE A-25/27 ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 AND REGIONAL DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES INCLUDING A REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, ASSAM AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT DIMAPUR, IN THE STATE OF NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. TSUDENSANGLA AND 4 ORS W/O LT. TEMSUWATI JAMIR, R/O H.NO. 186, LENGRIJAN, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND (REPRESENTING RESPONDENT NO 2 AND 3) 2:MASTER ALEMKOK JAMIR S/O LT. TEMSUWATI JAMIR AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS R/O H.NO. 186 LENGRIJAN DIMAPUR NAGALAND 3:MS. KATIMEN JAMIR S/O LT. TEMSUWATI JAMIR AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS R/O H.NO. 186 LENGRIJAN DIMAPUR NAGALAND 4:PASTOR BOROLENGRI AO BAPTIST AROGO DIMAPUR NAGALAND Page No.# 2/9 5:MR. KORASASHI LEMTUR S/O LT. MAR LEMTUR H.NO. 82 LENGRIJAN DIMAPUR NAGALAND (DRIVER OF BOLERO B/R NO. NL 07-9947 Advocate for the Petitioner : KIM PIENYU, KIM PIENYU,LAKNYEI PHOM Advocate for the Respondent : BENDANGWABANG, NUKSUNG BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 20.11.2025 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the Judgment and Award dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned MACT, Dimapur Nagaland in MACT Case No. 54/2021. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Kim Pienyu as well as learned counsel, Mr. Bendangwapang for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also learned counsel, Mr. Wati Jamir for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. 3. The brief fact of the case is that an accident occurred on 31.03.2021 at NH-61 under Wokha District involving Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. NL07-9947 where the claimant’s husband, a pastor by profession, succumbed to the injuries on the spot. During the accident the vehicle was driven by a paid driver and the deceased was seated on the backseat along with his mother. The fact about the accident was duly reported to the Wokha Police Station, Wokha Nagaland which was Page No.# 3/9 registered as GD No. 002/21 of Wokha PS Case No. 009/2021. 4. The claimant/respondent filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned MACT Dimapur praying for compensation against the opposite parties. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and after adducing evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs as compensation along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization to be paid by the appellant/The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the Order. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 19.06.2025, passed in MAC Case No. 54/2021 the appellant/insurer has come before this Court challenging the judgment on the following grounds:- (i) That Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be resorted to only by a third party. In the present case, the deceased was the owner and the vehicle was being driven by a paid driver and, therefore, the Trial Court could not have entertained the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii) It is stated that the investigating authority failed to comply with the provisions of law and no post-mortem examination was conducted by the investigating agency and, therefore, it was difficult to ascertain the exact cause of the death without the post-mortem Page No.# 4/9 report. However, the claimant had failed to produce the same and the Tribunal should have taken notice of this fact. On this point, the learned counsel relies on the case of Gohar Mohammed Versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others in Civil Appeal No. 9322/2022. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the sum assured in the Personal Accidental Death of owner-driver is a fixed amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs as per the policy, which was a Private Car Liability Only Policy-Zone B. It is submitted that the Tribunal also noted about the accident case not being a third party claim but failed to decide the matter as per legal procedure. It is also submitted that the Tribunal erred in law by passing the Judgment against the insurer’s company along with excessive interest of 7.5% from the date of filing and that the interest should not be applicable in the present case as the premium amount coverage is fixed at Rs. 15 Lakhs and moreover, since the present claim was not a third party claim, the Tribunal could not have passed the said award in the present case. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned Judgment and Award dated 19.06.2025 passed in MAC Case No. 54/2021 may be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. Bendangwapang has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable in as much as the grounds set out by the appellants are not valid grounds for appeal. It is also submitted that the insurance policy Page No.# 5/9 clearly shows that the insured was the Pastor of Borlengri Ao Baptist Arogo and the additional premium has been paid for owner-driver. Learned counsel also submits that the factum of the accident as well as the death of the deceased has not been disputed by the insurer before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was travelling in his own vehicle as owner. Moreover, there is no legal bar under a contract of insurance that the owner cannot travel in the vehicle along with a paid driver. He has also submitted that the appellant/insurer has also admitted before the Tribunal as well as in their pleadings in the appeal memo that the sum assured in Personal Accidental Death of Owner-Driver is fixed at a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs. Learned counsel further submits that there is no rider in the policy that only a driver shall drive the vehicle and that while the vehicle was being used only the owner could drive the vehicle. It is not disputed that the registered owner is the Pastor of Borlengri Ao Baptist Arogo and as such, in order to cover up the additional risk of insurance an additional premium for owner-driver to the tune of Rs. 320 have been paid. And as such, the vehicle could be driven by the owner, driver or its official driver or by another person entitled to drive the vehicle with proper driving licence. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may not interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award as the learned Tribunal has come to the correct finding that the claimant/respondents are entitled to compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is further submitted that the amount of interest is also rightly given as the interest amount is at the discretion of the Tribunal. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels Page No.# 6/9 and has also perused the pleadings of the parties. The Court has also gone through the Trial Court Records in original. 9. The Trial Court framed five issues:- 1. Whether there was an accident dated 31.03.2021 involving vehicle No. NL07-9947 near Santsuphen Wokha and the deceased Temsuwati Jamir died therein? 2. Whether the vehicle Bolero B/R No. NL07-9947 insured in the name of Pastor Borlengri Ao Baptist Arogo from 14.11.2020 to midnight of 13.11.2021? If so whether Lt. Temsuwati Jamir was the then Pastor of Borlengri Ao Baptist Arogo? 3. When the paid driver was driving and the owner cum driver was travelling as a passenger without any additional payment of premium for passenger, whether it can be treated that the deceased Pastor died in the capacity of owner cum driver covered by the policy or her should be treated as First Party without any liability from the Insurer? 4. Whether the Vehicle Bolero B/R No/ NL07-9947 was having valid R.C. and all other relevant documents including Insurance Policy at the relevant time? 5. Whether the claimants are entitled to any amount of compensation? If so, to what extent and payable by whom? Page No.# 7/9 The important issue is Issue No. 3, i.e., whether the deceased was travelling in his own vehicle not in the capacity of owner but was travelling as an occupant and whether he should be treated as first party without any liability from the insurer. This Court, upon going through the Trial Court Records has found that during the trial the appellant/insurer has not disputed the factum of the accident which occurred on 31.03.2021 nor has the insurer disputed the death of the deceased in the said accident. The insurer also admitted the fact that the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL07-9947 was insured with the company in the name of Pastor Borlengri Ao Baptist Arogo. It is also admitted by the appellant insurer in the appeal memo as well as before the Tribunal that the policy in question was a Private Car Liability Only Policy-Zone B and the sum assured in personal accidental death of owner driver was a fixed amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs as per the policy terms and conditions. Therefore, there was a contractual liability on the part of the insurer/appellant to satisfy the amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs in the event of accidental death of owner-driver. There is also no rider or restriction in the insurance policy that the owner cannot travel in the vehicle along with a paid driver on the wheel. In any view of the matter, the insurance company/appellant had already received the additional premium for coverage of owner cum driver as well as additional liability to cover the risk of driver, conductor and cleaner. Therefore, the insurer/appellant cannot escape from its contractual liability. The learned Tribunal has rightly come to a finding that the Pastor was the registered owner in the eye of law who was none other than the deceased. And that the vehicle was insured in the name of the Pastor, wherein the insurer had a liability to pay the owner cum driver a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs if the Page No.# 8/9 accident occurs while he was driving. As such, the learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased being the Pastor at the time of the accident, he was the registered owner of the said vehicle for all purposes and intent. This Court has also seen that the insurer has admitted that the insured had paid additional premium for owner cum driver to the tune of Rs. 320 as well as Rs. 50 for the driver, cleaner and conductor for the use and operation of the said vehicle. 10. Besides the issue discussed above, no other dispute has been raised by the insurer/appellant with regard to the vehicle documents or the driving licence. Insurer/appellant has also admitted that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident and that the insurer had contractual liability to pay the owner cum driver a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs and the only contention raised is that the paid driver was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and not the owner/deceased. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the ground taken by the insurer that in order for the owner of the vehicle to be covered by the policy the owner must have been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, is not tenable and the insurer cannot escape the contractual liability. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award dated 19.06.2025 passed in MAC Case No. 54/2021. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 12. The appellant/insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the learned MACT Dimapur within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this Order. The Registry is also directed to release the Page No.# 9/9 statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing the present appeal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant