IMPORTANT POINT
The registered owner remains liable for compensation despite vehicle requisition, and the insurance policy is deemed transferred under statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Both appeals arise from a common award dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV)No.421/2007.

2. M.A.C.A.No.1379/2011 is filed by the claimants therein challenging the award to the extent it exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and imposed the entire liability to pay the compensation on the additional 4th respondent in the claim petition, the State of Assam. M.A.C.A No.596/2013 is submitted by the State of Assam, where the challenge is against the liability imposed upon the appellant therein by exonerating the Insurance Company. (For convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment based on their respective ranks in the claim petition)

3. Brief facts necessary to consider the issues involved in these M.A.C.As are as follows:

3.1. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Kunjumon V.D., who met with an accident while working as a Nursing Assistant in B.S.F. at Assam. The accident occurred on 07.03.2007 at 8.45 p.m. while he was travelling in a Maruti van bearing registration No. AS-01/Y8991. The accident occurred when the said Maruti van hit against the rear side of a lorry. Consequent to the injuries sustained, he died and seeking compensation for his death, the claim petition was submitted.

4. The 3rd respondent Insurer of the vehicle submitted a written statement contending that, at the relevant time, the vehicle was under the control of the State of Assam as the vehicle was taken in custody by the Additional District Magistrate, Lakhimpur, Assam, for hire as per his order dated 01.03.2007. According to him, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the coverage cannot be extended if the vehicle was used under hire or reward. It was pointed out that the premium was collected as a private vehicle, whereas the premium for a vehicle used for hire or reward is higher. Therefore, they sought exoneration from the liability. Accordingly, the additional 4th respondent, the State of Assam, was impleaded as per order dated 16.04.2010, but they did not contest the matter.

5. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1, and Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the petitioners. From the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B3 were marked.

6. The basic question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company and imposing the entire liability upon the State of Assam, the Additional 4th respondent, is proper or not. The facts in this case are not in dispute. It is an admitted position that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was under the control of the Additional District Magistrate, Lakhimpur, Assam, who obtained the possession of the vehicle from the registered owner of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, as per Ext.B1 order. After examining the materials placed on record, the Tribunal found that, as the vehicle was under the control of the additional 4th respondent, the Insurance Company was to be exonerated from liability and accordingly, the additional 4th respondent was held responsible to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.15,71,000/- and the same was directed to be deposited by the additional 4th respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.23,570/-.

7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. From the award, it can be seen that the Tribunal found that, as the vehicle was in absolute control of the Additional District Magistrate and the said control was taken over by the District Magistrate by exercising his powers vested upon him by the statute, which did not provide any alternate way for the registered owner than to hand over the vehicle to him, the registered owner of the vehicle cannot be held responsible for the compensation and consequently the Insurer also will not have any liability. Thus, the registered owner and the Insurer were exo