In the case of a gratuitous passenger claiming damages against the owner of a vehicle, the question of liability depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner unless the policy specifically covers such claims.

SADANANDASWAMY, J.:- These appeals arise out of the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nowgong in several Claim Cases which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 6-6-1967. These appeals are referred to this Bench since the Division Bench which heard these appeals in the first instance was of the view that there is a difference of opinion expressed in M/s. Assam Corporation v. Binu Ram (AIR 1975 Gau 3) and Asha Rani Ghose v. Common Wealth Assurance Company Ltd., an unreported decision of this Court in M. A. (F) No. 41 of 1969, disposed of on 21-2-1974 (Gau), the former decision taking the view that an award can be passed against the insurer in respect of liability arising out of injury caused in an accident to a gratuitous passenger, whereas the latter decision took a contrary view.

2. As a consequence of an accident which took place at about 12.30 P. M. on 11-1-1968 in which the bus bearing No. ASX 1092 belonging to the State of Assam and a private Ambassador Cad bearing No. ASR 1053 met with a direct collision. Bihuram Das and his minor son Karuna Kumar Das died and Robin Das, the younger brother of Bihuram Das, was seriously injured. All the three were travelling in the car. The driver of the car also died on the spot. The bus was travelling towards the east, from Jorhat towards Sibsagar. The car was travelling in the opposite direction. The accident took place at a distance of one and a half miles from the Teok Bus Stand and the impact was with such force that the front portion of the car along with its engine went violently into the front portion of the bus. Due to the impact the car was pushed back to a certain distance. Both the vehicles were found telescoped into each other. The place where the two vehicles were found was towards the northern edge of the tarred road. The tarred road is of the width of about 12 feet with the kutcha portion of about 11 feet on each side. Bihuram was pulled out from inside the car and expired immediately thereafter. Karuna Kumar Das and Robin Das were removed to the hospital. Karuna Kumar Das expired in the hospital at Barbari, Dibrugarh. Robin Das underwent medical treatment in the hospital for his broken right femur (thigh bone), his broken right arm and for other injuries suffered by him in the accident.

3. The widow of Bihuram Das, namely, Smt. Bhaba Kanti Das filed Claim Case No. 3 of 1963 of Gauhati which was later re-numbered as claim case No. 11 of 1965 of Nowgong, on her own behalf and on behalf of the surviving minor children of Bihuram Das claiming Rs. 1,74,000/- towards the death of her husband and Rs. 20,000/- towards the death of her son Karuna Kumar Das, thus claiming Rs. 1,94,000/- in all against the State of Assam, the owner of the bus Smt. Hira Devi, the owner of the car and the commonwealth Assurance Company with which the car was insured. The minor daughters of Bihuram Das attained majority during the pendency of these appeals and they have entered appearance on their own behalf. Robin Das presented the claim petition through his father as his guardian since he was a minor on the date of the accident. His application was registered as claim Case No. 4 of 1968 of Gauhati which was later renumbered as claim case No. 10 of 1965 of Nowgong. He claimed Rs. 45,000/- as compensation for damages suffered by him in consequence of the accident. During the pendency of the Claim case he attained majority and was brought on record. The Claim cases were filed at Gauhati before the then existing Tribunal at Gauhati and when they were later transferred to the Tribunal at Nowgong, on the order of the Government, they were given separate numbers at Nowgong.

4. All the opponents contested the claims. On the suggestion of the learned counsel for the parties, both the cases were dealt with together by the Tribunal. Common evidence was recorded and a common judgment was rendered on the basis of which the awards were passed. The Tribunal held that both the driver