(1.) By making the application under Sec- lion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant-respondent herein sought for compensation for the death of her husband Ramen Paul, which took place, on 21.12.98, at PWD road of Salna Tea Estate, while the claimant-respondent's husband was travelling in a mini truck bearing registration No. AS-02/6034. This application gave rise to MAC Case No. 212/ 98 and by an award, dated 24.05.2002, passed therein, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, granted Rs.1,90,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent herein and directed the insurer of the said vehicle, namely, the petitioner herein to make payment of the same. Aggrieved by this award, dialed 24.05.2002, the petitioner has impugned the same in the present writ petition on the ground that the said deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the said truck and the petitioner, being insurer of the said vehicle, was not liable to indemnify the-in- sured-owner, i.e. respondent No-. 2 herein and yet the learned Tribunal, contrary to the relevant insurance policy and also the provisions of the law contained in that be- half, directed the insurer-petitioner, relying upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sat pal Singh, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 237, to make payment of the said compensation amount to the claimant.
(2.) I have heard Mr. D. Sur, learned coun- sell for the insurer-petitioner and Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel for the claimant- respondent.
(3.) Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Asha Rani, reported in (2003)2 SCC 223, Mr. Sur has submitted that in respect of a gratuitous passenger, insurance is not compulsory and since in the case at hand, the terms of the policy did not cover gratuitous passenger (s) travelling in the said vehicle, the learned Tribunal wrongly fastened the insurer with the liability to indemnify the insured by directing the petitioner to pay to the claimant the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal.