GUWAHATI, India, June 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 14:

1. Heard Mr. T. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Tribunal") in MAC Case No. 1899/2017 whereby the claimants have been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 16,92,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

3. Mr. T. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the only ground of objection so taken in the instant appeal is that the deceased was not a labourer of the tractor nor the authorized representative of the company and as he was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, the learned Tribunal could not have directed the Appellant Insurance Company to make payment of the amount so awarded and thereupon to recover the entire amount from the owner of the vehicle in due course of time. In that regard, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has referred to the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arati Chik @Sik and Others reported in (2019) 3 GLT 47.

4. Taking into account the ground of objection so taken in the instant appeal, the point for determination which arises is, as to whether, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing payment of the awarded amount to the claimants by the Appellant Insurance Company and thereupon to recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

5. This Court has duly perused the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Without going much into the said judgment, this Court finds it very relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun & Others Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 as the said judgment has a direct bearing on the issue involved in this case. The facts in the case of Manuara Khatun (supra) was that two claim proceedings were filed by the wives of the two deceased persons being MAC Case No. 652/2001 and MAC Case No. 653/2001 claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased persons. The learned Tribunal taking into account that the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers, exonerated the Insurance Company and directed the payment to be made by the owner of the vehicle.

6. Being aggrieved by the said award, two appeals were filed being MAC Appeal No. 7/2009 and MAC Appeal No. 8/2009 before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation and also for a direction that the amounts be satisfied by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company can later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle. These appeals were dismissed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a common judgment and order dated 22.06.2012.

7. Being aggrieved, the claimants approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was seized with the specific question, as to whether, this Court was justified in not issuing directions to the Insurance Company to make the payment and then recover it from the owner. The Supreme Court in the said judgment categorically observed that this Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in directing to make payment by the Insurance Company and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xz0yZASJ5inI9kVErTh95q%2Bmo7CMNSr5xf4zWuxqmFbj&caseno=MACApp./172/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010089252025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.