2025:JHHC:26712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 231 of 2015 National Insurance Company Limited, Gumla Branch Palkot Road, Gumla, P.O. & P.S., District-Gumla through Assistant Manager, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Ranchi, Office at Kachahri Road beside Gopal Complex, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Basanti Devi, W/o Late Chandreswar Oraon 2. Rashmi Oraon, represented through respondent no. 1 3. Roshni Oraon, represented through respondent no. 1 Both daughter of Late Chandreshwar Oraon 4. Niranjan Oraon, S/o Late Chandreshwar Oraon 5. Budhmani Devi, W/o Sukra Oraon 6. Sukra Oraon, S/o Late Tetru Oraon All residents of village-Basuwa Patratoli, Post-Basuwa, P.S. & District- Gumla 7. SuMitra Devi W/o Late Shyam Lal Prasad 8. Rupesh Kumar Lal, S/o Late Shyam Lal Prasad 9. Manish Kumar Lal, S/o Late Shyam Lal Prasad 10. Ekta Kumari, D/o Late Shyam Lal Prasad 11. Sunita Kumar, D/o Late Shyam Lal Prasad All residents of village & P.O. Armai, P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla, Jharkhand … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No. 22 / Dated : 02.09.2025. 1. The Insurance-Company is in appeal against the award of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V Act in M.A.C Case No. 16/2013, whereby and whereunder the liability to pay compensation amount has been fixed on Insurance-Company. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. It has also not in dispute that the offending vehicle at the relevant time of accident was under the insurance cover of appellant-Insurance Company. 3. The main ground of appeal is that although a finding has been recorded that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, but no right of recovery has been given to the Insurance-Company for breach of terms of the insurance policy under Section 149 of the M.V. Act. A specific reference is made to the deposition of wife of the deceased A.W.1, wherein she has stated in para 13 2025:JHHC:26712 that at the relevant time he was travelling as a passenger on a tractor. The FIR (Ext.-1) also shows that the deceased was going on the tractor to celebrate a festival. 4. Notice was earlier issued in this case to the owner of the vehicle, but he has not appeared and consequently, the appeal is being heard ex-parte against him. 5. On perusal of the impugned award, learned Tribunal has explained and assigned reason for not accepting that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger on the basis of the deposition of the wife of the deceased A.W.-1 who has stated in para 13 that he used to work on the said tractor. While exercising appellate jurisdiction law is settled that when two views are possible the one taken by the learned Trial Court need not be unsettled. 6. Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award and the instant misc. appeal stands dismissed. 7. It is submitted that entire awarded amount except the interest amount has been paid. Under the circumstance, statutory amount deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc. Appeal be remitted to the Tribunal to be disbursed along with compensation to the claimant within a month of this order. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/