The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in favor of the claimant, based on the credibility of evidence and the benevolent nature of the legislation.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned counsel for the appellants in MAC App. No. 29/2012 and Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC App. No. 115/2011. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in MAC App. No. 29/2012.

The matter arises out of the same claim petition, the former for enhancement and the latter on merits of the case.

Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order considering that they emanate from the same case.

2. These appeals are against the judgment and order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat dated 18.03.2011. The facts of the case is that, on 29.12.2007, the deceased Dilip Tanti, while proceeding towards Teok, the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-03B/6866 (407 Truck) driven by the opposite party No. 2 knocked him down and he succumbed to the injuries. The said vehicle is insured with the United India Insurance Company, who is impleaded as opposite party No. 3 in the claim petition. The plea of the appellant is that the petitioners are not entitled to compensation from the company as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. At the trial stage, the claimants examined 2 (two) eyewitnesses, PW-3 and PW-4. PW-4 was said to have been travelling in the truck involved in the accident on the day of the incidence. He was sitting in the front side near the driver. When the vehicle came upon a big pot-hole on the road and dashed the deceased who was riding a bicycle.

3. PW-3, Nasir Ahmed also claimed to have witnessed the incident. He was in the place of incidence and stated that the vehicle came over a big pot-hole and knocked down the deceased who was riding a bicycle. The vehicle capsized.

4. The opposite parties also examined 3 (three) witnesses who are the police officer in-charge of Teok Police Station who exhibited the G.D. entries in connection with the accident.

5. DW-1 and DW-3 are employees of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. who enquired upon the accident. The report given by DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 is that there was an accident, however, FIR was not lodged as the parties came to an amicable settlement. 6. DW-2, who is the officer in-charge of Teok Police Station exhibited G.D. entries in connection with the said accident. He testified that there was an amicable settlement and he also stated that as per the G.D. entry, there was an accident and Kartik Kumar died due to injuries sustained in the said accident.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants in MAC App. 115/2012, Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, contends that the claim petition is based on the G.D. entry and the G.D. entry shows that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, hence, the claim petition does not have any basis. She has argued that the claimants have already made settlement with the owner of the vehicle, and therefore there cannot be a second claim for the same cause of action. The owner of the vehicle has compensated the injured considering that they are liable.

8. Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC App. 115/2011 also argues that since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and knowing that he was not entitled to compensation they had come into an amicable settlement and they refrained from filing the FIR. She has argued that the plea that the police has not discharged their duty is not tenable since that is a dereliction of duty which has to be answered by the State and not by the insurance company. Reliance is placed on our own High Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hananya Rabha and others, reported in MAC App. No. 103/2013. The Court, in the above referred case, has ruled that in cases where there is dereliction of duty on the part of police officer, the claimant would be entitled to file a civil suit for recovery of such injury/damages from the State. In case of this nature, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as this Court acting as an Appellate Court has no power to