Gauhati High Court
MACApp./115/2013 on 2 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010005892011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh )
Case No: MACApp. 87/2011
Panapati Devi
-Versus-
Md. Abidur Rahman And 2 Ors.
with
Case No: MACApp. 245/2010
Smt. Ramawati Divi
-Versus-
Md. Abidur Rahman and 2 Ors.
with
Case No: MACApp. 233/2012
National Insurance Co. LTD.
-Versus-
Smti. Panapati Devi and Ors.
with
Case No: MACApp. 115/2013
National Insurance Co. LTD.
-Versus-
Smti. Romawati Devi and 8 Ors.
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
Page No.# 2/17
For the Appellants/Petitioners : Mr. S. Khanikar
For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bhatra (National Insurance Company)
Ms. P. Borthakur (respondent no. 6)
Mr. S. Dutta (respondent no. 9)
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2022
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 02.02.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. S. Khanikar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants as well as Mr. R.K.
Bhatra, learned counsel for the respondents in MACApp. 87/2011 and MACApp. 245/2010.
Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 9 and Ms. P.
Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 in MACApp. 233/2012 and MACApp.
115/2013.
2. This order shall dispose of MACApp. No. 87/2011 (Panapati Devi Vs. Md. Abidur
Rahman and 2 Ors.), MACApp. No. 245/2010 (Smt. Romawati Divi Vs. Md. Abidur Rahman
and 2 Ors), MACApp. No. 233/2012 (National Insurance Co. LTD. Vs Smti. Panapati Devi and
Ors.), MACApp. No. 115/2013 (National Insurance Co. LTD. Vs Smti. Romawati Devi and 8
Ors.). All the four appeals arise out of the common award dated 07.04.2010 passed by
learned Member, MACT Sivasagar in MAC Case No. 25/2006 and MAC Case No. 26/2006.
3. MACApp. No. 87/2011 has been filed by the claimant Panapati Devi seeking award of
compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act on account of death of her husband Seuji
Mahato and MACApp. No. 245/2010 was filed by the claimant Romawati Devi on account of
death of her son Chandra Bhusan Prasad and MACApp. No. 233/2012 and MACApp. No.
Page No.# 3/17
115/2013 have been filed by the National Insurance Co. Limited challenging its liability to pay
compensation awarded in favour of the claimants by the learned Tribunal.
4. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that original MAC Case No.
25/2006 was filed by the Claimant Romawati Devi on account of death of her son Chandra
Bhusan Prasad, who died in an accident which occurred on 16.03.2006 at Tamulipathar under
Kamargaon police station at Golaghat district and MAC Case No. 26/2006 was filed by the
claimant Panapati Devi on account of death of her husband Seuji Mahato, who died in the
same accident.
5. On 16.03.2006, the deceased Seuji Mahato (husband of the claimant Panapati Devi)
hired the vehicle bearing registration no. AS-04/E-2147 to bring vegetables from Bisumari
Chikonmati of Darrang district, in which both the deceased Seuji Mahato and Chandra Bhusan
Prasad were travelling. It is alleged that the vehicle being driven by the driver in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against a standing truck bearing registration no. AS-25B/9511
on its back as a result of which the said truck again hit backside of another vehicle bearing
no. AS03/7278. Due to the alleged accident, husband of the claimant Panapati Devi and son
of another claimant Romawati Devi died on the spot.
6. I have gone through the record of MAC Case No. 25/2006 and MAC Case No. 26/2006
and the Judgment of the learned Tribunal.
Elaborate discussion was rendered by the Tribunal and hold that the vehicle in which
both the deceased were travelling bearing no. AS-04E-2147 (Mini Truck) was responsible for
the alleged accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle.
Page No.# 4/17
7. The judgment of the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No.26/2006 be reproduced as
follows:-
18. " The claimant in her claim application (para-22) has stated that on 16.03.2006, the
deceased hired the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-04/E-2147 (Mini Truck), which was
involved in an accident at about 12 midnight on National Highway 37 at Tamulipathar under
Kamargaon Police Station of Golaghat district. This vehicle dashed against a standing vehicle
(Truck), number being AS-25B/9511 from its back side. The claimant did not allege in her
original petition about the involvement of vehicle No. AS-03/7278 in the alleged accident. But
in her amended application, the claimant has stated that the truck No. AS-25/B-9511 had
also hit the Truck No. AS-03/7278 from its back.''
19. " The opposite party Nos. 1,3,4,6 and 9 have categorically admitted the involvement of
the Truck No. AS-25/B-9511 in the said accident. Opposite party Nos. 6 and 9 in their written
statement have stated that the vehicle No. AS-25/B-9511 was the standing vehicle and it was
off the road. This vehicle was dashed by the offending vehicle No. AS-04/E-2147 from its
back. Both the opposite party nos. 6 and 9 have stated that as a result, the vehicle no. AS-
04/E-2147 had lost its control and hit the vehicle No. AS-03/7278 from its back. The opposite
party No. 9 has further stated that the vehicle No. AS-03/7278 was a non offending vehicle."
20. " Claimant has examined one Pranab Kumar Gogoi, C.I. of Majuli Circle as C.W. 3. He
deposed on oath that he was working as officer-in-charge of Kamargaon Police Station on
16.03.2006. On that date, he lodged a written ejahar at his police station. Ext. 1 is the
ejahar. He had registered the case as Kamargaon P.S. Case No. 12/2006 U/s
279/338/304(A)/427, IPC and he himself investigated the case. According to him, Vehicle No.
AS-04/E-2147 dashed the standing Vehicle No. AS-25/B-9511 and this vehicle again dashed
Page No.# 5/17
another stationary vehicle No. AS-03/7278. During cross-examination he said that both the
stationary vehicles were standing on the road one after another facing towards Tezpur."
21. "On perusal of the Ext. 1 (FIR) and Ext. 5 (Charge-Sheet), it appears that Vehicle Nos.
AS-04/E-2147 dashed the standing Vehicle No. AS-25/B-9511 and as a result this vehicle
dashed again another stationary vehicle No. AS-03/7278. So, from the evidence of the C.W. 3
and the exhibited documents it becomes clear that three vehicles being AS-04/E-2147, AS-
03/7278 and AS-25B-9511 were involved in the alleged accident occurred on 16.03.2006. As
such, this part of this issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the claimant and answered in
affirmative."
22. "Next part of this issue is whether deceased Seuji mahato died in the alleged accident.
The claimant in her claim application as well as in her deposition has stated that the victim
died on the spot as a result of the alleged accident. C.W. 2 has supported this fact. On
perusal of the evidence of the C.W. 3 (informant), it appears that the victim Seuji Mahato
died on the spot as a result of the accident. Ext. 1 (FIR), Ext. 2 (post-mortem report), Ext. 3
(Report about a motor accident u/s 166 M.V. Act) and Ext. 5 (Charge-sheet) clearly shows
that victim Seuji Mahato died on 16.03.2006. The contesting opposite parties did not deny
this fact. They also did not put any question to the C.W. 3 in this regard. The only witness
examined by the Opposite party has admitted the death of the deceased in the alleged
accident. Hence, it is clear that the deceased died on the spot as a result of the accident
occurred on 16.03.2006. As such, this part of the issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the
claimant and answered in affirmative."
8. The judgment of the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No.25/2006 be reproduced as follows:-
" 22. Next part of this issue is whether deceased Chandra Bhusan Prasad died in the alleged
Page No.# 6/17
accident. The claimant in her claim application as well as in her deposition has stated that the
victim died on the spot as a result of the alleged accident. C.W. 2 has supported this fact. On
perusal of the evidence of the C.W. 3 (informant), it appears that the victim Chandra Bhusan
died on the spot as a result of the accident. Ext. 1(FIR), Ext.3 (Post-Mortem Report), Ext. 4
(Report about a motor accident u/s 166 M.V. Act) and Ext. 5 (Charge-sheet) clearly shows
that victim Chandra Bhusan Prasad died on 16.03.2006. The contesting opposite parties did
not deny this fact. They also did not put any question to the C.W. 3 in this regard. The only
witness examined by the opposite party has admitted the death of the deceased in the
alleged accident. Hence, it is clear that the deceased died on the spot as a result of the
accident occurred on 16.03.2006. As such, this part of the Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of
the claimant and answered in affirmative."
9. On perusal of the aforesaid contention made by the learned Tribunal, it is crystal clear
that the deceased Seuji Mahato and Chandra Bhusan Prasad died due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the vehicle AS-04E-2147.
10. In the case of Bimla Devi and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court held that in a petition under Section 166
of the Act, the Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim
Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly
taken a holistic view of the matter. It has to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident
caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have
Page No.# 7/17
been applied.
11. In the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Kamlesh:2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 where adverse inference was drawn because the driver
of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken
in the written statement. It was noted that there is nothing on record to show that the
claimant had any enmity with the driver of offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in
the case.
12. Bimla Devi (Supra) was relied on by the Supreme Court in its latest judgments in
Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata Vs. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC
646.
13. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ
287, it was held that "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the
respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this
regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal (Supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it
becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal
record of criminal case in F.I.R. No. 955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending
vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge-
sheet under Sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of
F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and
mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These
documents are sufficient proofs to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
Page No.# 8/17
Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence
strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention
of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to
prove negligence on the part of the driver."
14. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition as well as the fact in issue squarely falls into
the category of the case under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in which both the claimants are
entitled to get the benefit of the said provision of law.
15. As per claim petition in MAC Case No. 25 of 2006, the occupation of the deceased
Chandra Bhusan Prasad, was shown as vegetable wholesaler/businessman and his monthly
income was Rs. 6,000/-. According to the claimant Panpati Devi in the MAC Case No. 26 of
2006, the occupation of the deceased Seuji Mahato was shown as vegetable
wholesaler/businessman and his monthly income was Rs. 7,200/-, but no documents are
available regarding income of both the deceased persons.
16. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735
(Syed Sadiq and Others Vs. Divisional manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.), the
compensation of the vegetable vendor was determined as Rs. 6,500/- per month. It was held
in the said case that the said employee labour in unorganized sector i.e. the claimant
vegetable vendor sustaining disability cannot be expected to produce documents of his
monthly income. Considering present state of economy in agricultural products reasonably
capable of earning of Rs. 6,500/- per month and compensation was awarded accordingly.
On the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding income of the vegetable
vendor, in the case in hand also, the income of both the deceased be considered as Rs.
Page No.# 9/17
6,500/- per month.
17. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
reported in SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, it was observed that while determining the
income of the deceased in case of self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40-50 years and 10%
where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation.
18. In MAC Case No. 25/06, as per P.M. report, the age of the deceased Chandra Bhusan
Prasad was shown as 18 years. In MAC Case No. 26/06, as per claim petition, the age of the
deceased Seuji Mahato was shown as 35 years when the accident took place but as per P.M.
report, the age of the deceased mentioned as 40 years. It is a settled position of law that if
any age proof document is not available, the age mentioned in P.M. report can be taken into
consideration. As per P.M. report, the age of the deceased Chandra Bhusan Prasad was
shown as 18 years and the deceased Seuji Mahato was 40 years which can be taken into
consideration in this case.
19. In MAC Case No. 25/2006, as the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of the
accident. So 40% should be added along with his established income of Rs. 6,500/-. Hence,
monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 6,500/-+2,600(40%)=9,100/-.
20. As per the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, (AIR 2009(6) SC121) the multiplier
would be 18.
21. In the instant case, it appears that the deceased was a bachelor. As such, the
Page No.# 10/17
standardized deduction towards personal and living expense of deceased is applicable as
stated in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant
case, 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that
had the deceased been alive, he could have spent 50% for his personal and living expenses.
22. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram (2018) ACJ
2782) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case
where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium.
In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme court awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of
filial consortium to the father and sister of the deceased.
23. In MAC Case No. 25/2006, the claimant Ramawati Devi is the mother of the deceased
Chandra Bhusan Prasad as such she is entitled to get the filial consortium for the death of her
son.
24. As per SLP(Civil) No. 255590 of 2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs- Pranay
Shethi & Ors.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation in case of death
reasonable figures on conventional heads namely- Loss of estate, and Funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion the computation of compensation is awarded as
follows:-
(a) Annual income of the deceased=Rs. 9,100/-X12=1,09,200/-
(b) After deducting 50% of the income of the deceased the amount comes
Page No.# 11/17
to =Rs. 54,600/-,
(c) After multiplied with multiplier the amount
comes to =Rs. 54,600/-X18=9,82,800/-
(d) Funeral expenses=Rs. 15,000/-
(e) Filial Consortium= Rs. 40,000/-
(f) Loss of Estate= Rs. 15,000/-
Total = Rs. 10,52,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred)
only.
26. In MAC Case No. 26/2006, the age of the deceased Seuji Mahato was 40 years at the
time of accident. As per the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, (AIR 2009 (6) SC 121) the
multiplier would be 15.
27. In the case of MAC Case No. 26/2006, as the deceased was 40 years of age at the time
of the accident, so 25% should be added along with his established income of Rs. 6,500/-.
Hence, monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 6,500/-+1625(25%)=8125/-.
28. As per SLP(Civil) No. 255590 of 2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs- Pranay
Shethi & Ors.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation in case of death
reasonable figures on conventional heads namely- Loss of estate, Loss of consortium and
Funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
29. In MAC Case No. 26/2006, the deceased Seuji Mahato left behind his wife, one son
and two daughters. As such, the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses is
applicable as stated in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Since there is four numbers of
dependents, so 1/4th income is required to be deducted with the presumption that had the
deceased been alive he could have spent 3/4 th for his personal and living expenses.
Page No.# 12/17
30. In view of the death of Seuji Mahato in MAC Case No. 26/2006, the computation of
compensation is awarded as follows:-
(a) Annual income of the deceased=Rs. 8,000/-X12=96,000/-.
(b) After deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased the amount comes to Rs. 72,000/-.
(c) After multiplied with multiplier the amount comes to Rs. 72,000/-X15=Rs. 10,80,000/-.
(d) Funeral Expenses= Rs. 15,000/-
(e) Loss of Consortium=Rs. 40,000/-
(f) Loss of Estate =Rs. 15,000/-
Total =Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only.
31. Now the question comes who is liable to pay the amount whether the owner or the
insurer of the vehicle no. AS-04E/2147.
32. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that while
deciding Issue No. 3 by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has come to a definite finding that both the
deceased were gratuitous passengers in the vehicle No. AS-04/E-2147. Hence, no
compensation was payable by the insurer of the vehicle and the liability if any was by the
owner and not insurer. It is further argued that since the deceased were gratuitous passenger
in a goods vehicle, for which the liability for payment of compensation for death of two
passengers of goods vehicle would not be covered. Hence, the principle of pay and recover
would apply. In support of his submission learned counsel placed reliance on the following
case laws:-
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Ors. reported in (2004) 2
SCC1,
(ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Ors. reported in (2004) 13
Page No.# 13/17
SCC 224,
(iii) Anu Bhanvara etc. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
and Others reported in (2019) SCC online SC 1006.
33. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/respondents has submitted to
consider India Motor Tariff, 2002, wherein, legal liability to non-fare paying passengers who
are not employees of the insured (Commercial Vehicles Only) is attached to.
34. The law as regards fastening of liability on the insurer to pay compensation for
injuries/death caused to passenger of goods carriage is well-settled. The Act does not provide
for carrying of passengers in a goods carriage meant for carrying goods and that the owner
of such a goods carriage will not be entitled to statutory indemnity against the claim by the
gratuitous passengers. In fact, the Act does not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of
a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the
insurer would have no liability thereto. This is the statement of law as declared by the Apex
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati and Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC
486.
35. In judgment titled as Anu Bhanvara and Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited and Ors. 2019 ACJ 2808, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
" We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the
various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties. The insurance of the vehicle
though as a goods vehicle is not disputed by the parties. The claimants in the present case
are young children who have suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries
sustained in the accident. Thus keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
Page No.# 14/17
case, we are of the considered view that the principle of pay and recover should be directed
to be invoked in the present case. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of with the
direction that the respondent no. 1 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the awarded
amount to the claimants in both the appeals However, respondent no. 1 Insurance Company
shall have to right to realize the said amount of compensation from the respondent no. 2 and
3 in accordance with law."
36. In the judgment titled as Manuara Khatun & ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Civil
Appeal no. 3047 of 2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in MAC Case no. 372/2017 Sriniwas
Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., as under:-
" This question also fell for consideration recently in Manager, National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Saju P.Paul and Anr. (supra) wherein this Court took note of entire
previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context
of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance company by
reversing the judgment of the High Court. It was held on facts that since the victim was
travelling in offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and hence, the Insurance Company
cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the
insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and
other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the insurance company
to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured
in the same proceedings by applying the principle of pay and recover.''
37. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this
case a direction could be issued to the Insurance Company to first satisfy the awarded
Page No.# 15/17
amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
38. The records of MAC Case No. 25/2006 and 26/2006 show that the Insurance Company
has examined one witness Kiron Sankar Das, the then Branch Manager of National Insurance
Co. Ltd, Sivasagar Branch who exhibited the policy of the vehicle no. AS-04-E-2147 (Mini
Truck). He deposed in his evidence that the alleged vehicle was insured as goods carrying
vehicle, which is not meant for carrying passengers. It is also stated that as the alleged
vehicle AS-01E-2147 was goods carrying vehicle and as such no passengers should be
allowed to travel therein, as per existing provisions of law. Furthermore, no premium has also
been paid for such passengers but he had admitted that at the relevant time of the accident,
the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. vide
policy No. 200400/31/05/6300002021 valid from 21.11.2005 to 21.11.2006 issued under
Insurance Policy Act and existing provisions of law.
39. The similar question came up for consideration in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 829 (SC), wherein, it was
held that where passenger is travelling in a lorry as a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance
Company is not liable for payment of any compensation for the death of gratuitous passenger
travelling in the goods vehicle.
40. In the aforesaid both the cases Anu Bhanvara etc. (supra) and Manuara Khatun &
Ors. (supra), as the claimant did not receive any compensation and in view of the fact that
the claimant could not be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount, the Apex
Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and recover from
the owner although liability was not established against the insurer. Such exercise of power is
Page No.# 16/17
to do complete justice which is a residual power vested with the Apex Court only as observed
in several cases. These exercises are depending on the facts and Circumstances and could
not be treated as ratio.
41. In the case in hand, the insurer of the offending vehicle AS-04E-2147 has no liability at
all as both the deceased were found to be gratuitous passengers in the said vehicle. It will be
appropriate to mention that the same issue has been resolved and answered in MACApp. 55
of 2014 by our own High Court, wherein it has taken the view that the exercise made by the
Apex Court in giving such direction was an exercise made under Article 142 of the
Constitution.
42. It is also clear that the power vested under Article 142 of the Constitution is an extra
ordinary jurisdiction which is not exercisable by this Court or the MACT and therefore, it can
be said that exercise made under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be considered as a
ratio as decided in several cases of the Apex Court. So the prayer for pay and recovery
cannot be considered in this case.
43. In the result, all the four appeals are allowed. The compensation and award is
modified as described above. As it is proved that both the deceased were travelling in the
vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01E-2147(mini truck) as gratuitous passengers, as such
the insurer of the vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. However, the
owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the amount of compensation amounting to Rs.
10,52,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred) only to the claimant
Panapati Devi on account of death of her husband Seuji Mahato in MAC Case No. 26/2006
and Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only to Ramawati Devi on account
Page No.# 17/17
of death of her son Chandra Bhusan Prasad in MAC Case No. 25/2006. The compensation so
awarded will carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till full and
final realization.
44. LCR be returned back.
45. Statutory amount in deposit in MACApp. No. 233/2012 and MACApp. No. 115/2013 be
returned accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
