ORDER

Civil Appeal No, 1805 of 2005 @ SLP (C) No. 4089 of 2003

1. The respondents have been served but are unrepresented.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Leave granted.

4. Respondents 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased who died in an accident on 28-1-1996 leading to the filing of a claim petition on 9-7 -1996 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By order dated 20-8-1990 (sic), the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") granted compensation both against the appellant Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle, Respondent 7 herein. The appeal filed in the High Court by the appellant Insurance Company disputing its liability to pay to the legal representatives of the deceased was dismissed on 27-8-2002, in view of the law then prevailing as a result of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh1. The said decision has now been overruled by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani2 wherein it has been held that an insurance company will not be liable to pay compensation in respect of a gratuitous passenger being carried in a goods vehicle if the vehicle meets with an accident. In this view, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal. The claim petition against the appellant shall stand dismissed. We, however, clarify that the amount of compensation, if any, that may have been paid to Respondents 1 to 6 shall be recoverable by the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle, Respondent 7 herein and not from the legal representatives of the deceased.

5. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. 6. No costs.

SLP (C) No. 6269 012003

7. The accident took place in the year 1988. The Tribunal decided the claim petition in March 1990 awarding compensation along with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum. The High Court has maintained the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal. The only challenge of the Insurance Company before the High Court was on the question of rate of interest.

8. The respondents are unrepresented having been served by publication in the newspaper.

9. Though the petitioner may have a point on the issue of interest in view of the decision of this Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.3 but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the accident took place seventeen years ago, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.

10. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.