Page No.# 1/13 GAHC030000142025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./1/2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl Branch R/b its Branch Manager, Aizawl VERSUS Sh Gin Rosanga and 3 Ors. S/o Biakchhawna, R/o Bethlehem Veng, Aizawl 2:Sh Rosiamliana 3:Lalramthara (L) 4:Lalchhuanawm Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr K Laldinliana Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng for R1 & R2 Linked Case : MACApp./3/2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl Branch R/b its Manager Aizawl VERSUS Sh Lalremruata and 3 Ors. S/o Thangzathuama R/o Saron Veng Page No.# 2/13 Aizawl 2:Smt Khawlremsiami D/o Thangzathuama R/o Saron Veng Aizawl 3:Lalramthara (L) (Rep. by his son Lalthlamuana) R/o Bethlehem Veng Aizawl 4:Lalchhuanawma S/o Thangdawla (L) R/o Khatla East Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr K Laldinliana Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng for R1 & R2 Linked Case : MACApp./2/2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl Branch r/b its Branch Manager Aizawl VERSUS Smt. Lalrinawmi and 2 Ors. D/o Neihkimi R/o Bethlehem Veng Aizawl 2:Sh. Lalramthara (L) r/b his son Lalthlamuana R/o Bethlehem Veng Aizawl 3:Sh. Lalchhuanawma S/oThangdawla (L) R/o Khatla East Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr K Laldinliana Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng for R1 Page No.# 3/13 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocate for the appellant : Mr. K. Laldinliana Advocates for the respondents : Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng Date on which judgment is reserved : 20.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) This order will dispose of all the 3 (three) appeals preferred by the appellant against the 3 (three) Judgment & Order all dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) in MACT Case Nos. 6, 7 & 36/2022. In other words, although the learned Tribunal has rendered three separate judgment and order but as the vehicle involved in Page No.# 4/13 the accident and the accident itself are one and the same and that only separate claims have been made by the individual occupants of the vehicle, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MAC. App. No. 1/2025, respondent No. 1 in Mac. App. No. 2/2025 and for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MAC App. No. 3/2025. None appears for the respondent vehicle owner represented by his legal representative and also for the driver of the accident vehicle despite service of notice. 3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the appellant Insurance Company is that one Maruti Wagon R Car bearing registration No. MZ 01J 4141 belonging to Shri. Lalramthara (owner) and driven by Lalchhuanawma (Driver) on 19.12.2018 at 7:30 am, while coming from Aizawl towards Lamka, Manipur met with an accident on the outskirt of North East Khawdungsei village, in between Ngopa and North East Khawdungsei village at approximately about 2 kms from North East Khawdungsei. As a result of the accident, four out of the five occupants of the vehicle succumbed to their injuries on the spot. The vehicle owner Lalramthara was amongst one of the deceased persons. However, the driver of the vehicle Shri. Lalchhuanawma survived. Page No.# 5/13 4. As a result, the legal heirs of the deceased persons filed the claims for compensation before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( as amended) (MV Act). The claimants arrayed the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle through his legal representative and the driver of the accident vehicle as opposite parties to the claim application. In response to the claim the opposite parties including the appellants Insurance Company file their written statements denying their liability to pay compensation as was claimed by the claimants. It was the case of the owner of the accident vehicle as well as the driver of the accident vehicle that since the vehicle was validly insured with the appellants Insurance Company, they were not liable to pay compensation but it was the appellants Insurance Company who was to indemnify the claimants for the death of the deceased persons. 5. There is no dispute at the bar that the claim application filed by the owner of the vehicle in question was disposed of by the Tribunal by awarding a certain amount of compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company. The appellant Insurance Company has also satisfied the awarded amount. However, in respect of the three passengers of the vehicle, although the Tribunal awarded compensation through the impugned Judgment & Orders impugned in the instant appeals, the Insurance Company being aggrieved has challenged the Page No.# 6/13 same before this Court in the instant proceedings. 6. Mr. K.Laldinliana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant Insurance Company by filing their written statement denied their liability to pay compensation and had also examined the Manager of the Insurance Company as their witness. In his deposition, the said witness clearly stated that the Insurance Company did not receive any additional premium for passenger/inmate/occupants to cover the risk of the passenger/ inmate/occupants. In fact, the vehicle was insured under private car-liability only policy and the said policy does not cover the occupants/inmate/passenger of the vehicle. Under the circumstance, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure -1 of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The learned counsel submits that from a perusal of the said policy, it can be seen that the policy only covers a third party damage, claim of the owner driver and lastly the claim of the paid driver. A total premium of Rs. 1900/- was paid by the insure in all. Therefore, in absence of either a comprehensive policy or package policy covering the passengers of the vehicle in question, the Insurance Company has no liability to indemnify the claimants. In so far as the owner of Page No.# 7/13 the vehicle is concerned, since he is covered by the policy taken by him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was duly paid to him. The same would not be the case in respect of the passengers of the accident vehicle who in fact are only gratuitous passengers. The learned counsel therefore submits that under the facts and circumstances, the appellants have no liability to pay compensation to the claimants and the impugned judgment & order fastening the liability to the Insurance Company should be set aside by this Court. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smti Lakhimai Teronpi & Ors., reported in 2024 (1) T.A.C. 329(Gau.) 2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Tilak Singh & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 404 3. General Manager United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi & Ors., reported in 2009(17) SCC 301 4. National Ins. Co. Ltd Vs Balakrishnan & Anr., reported in 2013 (1) SCC 731 7. Per contra, Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel submits that the Page No.# 8/13 accident vehicle undisputably was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and the accident happened during the validity of the insurance policy. Since the Insurance Company had accepted a premium of Rs. 1900/- to insure the vehicle and which was duly admitted by them before the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company cannot deny paying the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. 8. The learned counsel submits that even if the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that additional premium was not paid to cover the passengers travelling in the accident vehicle, it is an established principals of law enunciated by the Apex Court that the Insurance Company, though not liable to pay the compensation, has to indemnify the claimant by paying the compensation awarded and later recover the same from the insuree. He submits that the MV Act being a beneficial legislation, Insurance Companies who run for profit, are required to come to the aid of the claimants in paying the compensation awarded and thereafter, recovering the same from the insuree. He submits that it is not even the case of the appellant that there was no insurance at all for the car which met with the accident but it is only a case of non-payment of additional premium to cover the passengers of the car. Therefore, this Court may direct the appellant Insurance Company to pay the Page No.# 9/13 compensation awarded by the Tribunal with liberty to the appellant to recover the same from the insuree. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities. 1. Sunita & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 867. 2. New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpal Singh & Ors., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 237. 3. Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186. 4. Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796. 5. S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 and 6. Order dated 11.02.2026 rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. ..../2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 21802/2023 (Kaminiben & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors.). Page No.# 10/13 9. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 10. The learned Tribunal in MAC Appeal No. 1/2025 corresponding to MACT Case No. 6/2022 under the given facts and circumstances of that case, had awarded a sum of Rs. 17,36,520/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim i.e., 25.02.2022 to the claimant. The learned Tribunal in MAC Appeal No. 2/2025 corresponding to MACT Case No. 7/2022 under the given facts and circumstances of that case, had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e., 25.02.2022 to the claimant and the amount is to be satisfied by the appellant Insurance Company. In respect of MAC Appeal No. 3/2025 corresponding to MACT Case No. 36/2022, the learned Tribunal under the given facts and circumstances of that case, had awarded a sum of Rs. 17,36,520/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e., 15.09.2022 to be paid by the appellant Insurance Company. 11. From the above projection of the appellant Insurance Company, it can be seen that the appellant has not denied the fact that the accident vehicle was duly insured with it, but the insurance was in respect of third party liability, owner-cum-driver and the engaged driver only. That no additional premium was Page No.# 11/13 paid in respect of passengers, who may travel in the vehicle and such being the position, it does not have the liability to indemnify the other passengers, who can be termed as gratuitous passengers. The insurance policy insuring the accident vehicle was annexed and exhibited by the claimants as well as the OP Insurance Company in their written statement before the Tribunal. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the premium was limited to only the three heads mentioned hereinabove and not beyond that. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify those persons who are not covered by the policy. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant speaks for itself. The Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balakrishnan & Anr. (Supra) held that unless the policy subscribed is that of comprehensive or package policy the Insurance Company cannot be held to be liable to compensate occupants of the vehicle which may even include a pillion rider of a two-wheeler. 12. However, while the above is the position as regards the liability of the Insurance Company, the Apex Court in a catena of judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent claimant has held that although the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify a gratuitous passenger but the appropriate recourse in such a situation would be to apply the principles of pay Page No.# 12/13 and recover. The said principle can be very well appreciated from the Apex Court decision rendered in Manwara Khatun & Ors. (Supra), S.Iyyapan (Supra), Sumita & Ors. and in a recent case i.e., Kaminibam & Ors. (Supra). Therefore, having regard to the said authorities, the principles enunciated by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the present appeals. Therefore, even if the appellant Insurance Company is found to be not liable to indemnify the claimants, it will still have to satisfy the awarded amount and thereafter, recover from the insuree concerned. 13. Therefore, under facts and circumstances of the case, upon due consideration of the submissions made and the authorities cited by the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant Insurance Company would be required to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal as was directed by the Tribunal and then take necessary steps to recover the awarded amount from the insuree in accordance with law. 14. All the three appeals are accordingly disposed of, with the above observations and directions. 15. The statutory deposit made by the appellant Insurance Company before the Registry of this Court be refunded along with interest, if any, to the Page No.# 13/13 appellant Insurance Company. 16. It is also made clear that the interest of 7% per annum awarded by the Tribunal would run from the date of filing of the claim till final payment is made, since there was no deposit made by the appellant Insurance Company during the pendency of the appeal except for the statutory fee. JUDGE Comparing Assistant