Aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimants have filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions before this Court.
It was also held that the driver of the Truck was number negligent in driving the Truck.
653 and 652 of 2001.
652 of 2001 claiming total companypensation of Rs.54,62,500/ before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon against Rajesh Kumar Singh, owner of the Tata Sumo respondent No.1 , Bhadra Kt.
653 of 2001 claiming total companypensation of Rs.55,20,400/ and Mamoni Saikia Mohanty, wife of Nirod Prasad Mohanty and her 3 minor children preferred claim petition bearing MAC No.
The pendency of companysideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does number mean that the companyrse that was followed in Baljit Kaur, 2004 2 SCC 1 and Challa Upendra Rao, 2004 8 SCC 517 should number be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case.
So far as the owner of the Truck respondent No.2 and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Insurer of the Truck respondent No.4 were companycerned, both were held number liable in any manner because, as mentioned above, the driver of the Truck was number found negligent in driving the Truck.
3 to pay the awarded sum to the appellants and then to recover the said amount from the insured owner of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo respondent No.1 in the same proceedings.
Manuara Khatun, wife of the Ismail Hussain and her 5 minor children filed Claim petition bearing MAC Case No.
8 of 2009 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act were filed before the High Court by the claimants for enhancement of the companypensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal.
The claim petitions were companytested only by the Insurance Companies.
Justice R.M. Lodha as His Lordship then was and later became CJI speaking for the Bench held in paras 20 and 26 as under The next question that arises for companysideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this case a direction companyld be issued to the Insurance Company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle Respondent 2 herein .
AS 01 H 2598 companying from the opposite direction as a result of which Ismail Hussain and Nirod Prasad Mohanty died on the spot and some other passengers sustained injuries.
AR 09 3997, when they arrived near Jorabat, there was a head on collusion between the Tata Sumo and a Truck bearing Registration No.
The recovery of the amount by the Insurance Company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in Challa Upendra Rao supra .
Das, owner of the Truck respondent No.2 , the insurer of the Tata Sumo United India Insurance Co. Ltd. respondent No.3 and New India Assurance Company Ltd., Insurer of the Truck respondent No.4 .
7 and 8 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein for enhancement of the companypensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon by order dated 05.09.2008 in MAC Case Nos.
Dissatisfied with the award, appeals bearing MAC Appeal No.7 of 2009 and MAC Appeal No.
The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companypanies were exonerated.
Heard Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned companynsel for the appellants, Mr. Ravi Bakshi, learned companynsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned companynsel for respondent No.4.
from the date of filing of case till payment.
At that time, the claimant was 28 years old.
In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The Insurance Company the appellant thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner Respondent 2 herein .
These appeals are filed against the companymon final judgment and order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati in MACA Nos.
The Tribunal held that Tata Sumo was a private car driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, which resulted in the accident.
On 03.07.2001, Ismail Hussain, husband of Manuara Khatun and Nirod Prasad Mohanty, husband of Mamoni Saikia Mohanty along with some other passengers were proceeding towards Guwahati from Nagoan in Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.
We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.
Accordingly, the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability and the award was passed only against the owner of Tata Sumo respondent No.1 in both the claim cases.
The other ground raised before the High Court was that it was the liability of the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle to companypensate the claimants jointly and severally with the owner of the Tata Sumo and in any event, the direction to pay the companypensation by the insurer of offending vehicle and then to recover from its insured should have been passed against the Insurer respondent No.3 .
In Saju P. Pauls case supra also having held that the victim was gratuitous passenger, this Court issued directions against the Insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the Insured in the same proceedings.
The Tribunal, vide award dated 05.08.2008, partly allowed both the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs.24,89,500/ to Manuara Khatun, wife of Ismail Khatun and Rs.24,09,500/ to Mamoni Saikia Mohanty, wife of Nirod Prasad Mohanty with interest 7.5 p.a.
So far as the owners of the vehicles were companycerned, they remained ex parte.
By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the claimants and held that the insurer was number liable because the passengers or occupants were being carried in a private vehicle as gratuitous passengers.
