MANMATYA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 23/5/2011 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court, Burdwan in MAC Case No. 77/95 of 2007.

(2.) The present claimants being the appellants have preferred the claim application under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act before the learned tribunal. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company before the learned tribunal by filling written statement.

(3.) After hearing the parties and after receiving the evidences the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,93,500.00towards the compensation and directed the owner i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the present claimants/appellants have been preferred this instant appeal. 1. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that the learned tribunal has erroneously directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, consequently Insurance Company had no liability to pay. He argued that by virtue of the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Baljit Kaur and Others reported in (2004) SCC 1 and Singh Ram Versus Nirmala and Others reported in (2018) SCC 800. The Insurance Company cannot be absolved from his liability to pay the third party. The Insurance Company may be directed to pay the compensation and in turn they are at liberty to recover the same from the owner. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the learned tribunal has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment. The impugned judgement has categorically stated about the status of the deceased who was actually a gratuitous passenger. The Insurance Company under the contact with the owner of the offending vehicle in duty bound to indemnify the compensation towards the third party. The gratuitous passenger is not come under the purview of the contract, so the learned tribunal has committed no error.