The Insurer's liability under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 is clarified, establishing that employment status of the deceased impacts liability despite claims of exemption for gratuitous passengers.

ORDER

B.P. Satapathy, J.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of a common Judgment, both are heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

3. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents.

4. While MACA No. 1272 of 2023 has been filed by the Insurer challenging the award, MACA No. 317 of 2024 has been filed by the Claimants seeking enhancement of the award.

5. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dt.30.08.2023 in MAC No. 22 of 2022 allowed the claim of the Claimants by holding the Insurer liable to pay the compensation so assessed along with interest with right of recovery as against the Owner-Respondent.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer contended that since the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a Pick-up van bearing Registration No. OD-15-C-7384, which has been clearly proved by the Insurer before the Tribunal by leading evidence in that regard through OPW 1, but without proper appreciation of such stand of the Insurer, the Tribunal held the Appellant liable to pay the compensation amount, with right of recovery as against the Owner-Respondent.

6.1. It is contended that after coming into force of the M.V. Amended Act, 2019, which was notified on 01.04.2022, the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation, if it is proved that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. It is contended that since the accident occurred on 18.04.2022 i.e. after the amendment was notified on 01.04.2022, in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 150 of the Amended M.V. Act, the Appellant could not have been held liable to pay the compensation.

It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment needs interference of this Court.

7. Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants- Respondents on the other hand contended that since the deceased was working as a Labourer in the offending vehicle and in course of his employment as a Labourer in the vehicle in question, he succumbed to the injury because of the accident which took place on 18.04.2022, the Tribunal has rightly held the Appellant-Insurer liable to pay the compensation with right of recovery being granted as against the Owner-Respondent No. 5. It is also contended that P.W. 1 in her evidence clearly stated that the deceased was working as a Labourer in the offending vehicle. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the evidence laid by P.W. 1 that the deceased was working as a Labourer in the offending vehicle, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned award. It is also contended that since without proper appreciation of the materials placed, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 14,23,000/- along with interest, the same needs enhancement.

8. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Claimants, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer made further submission and produced before this Court copy of the F.I.R. so submitted by the brother of the deceased along with other document so exhibited by the Claimants-Respondents before the Tribunal. Placing reliance on the said documents, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer contended that on the fateful day the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle along with two others. Since the sitting capacity of the vehicle is only two and admittedly the

10.1. Not only that the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the amended provisions contained under Sec. 150 of the M.V. Amended Act, 2019, which was brought into effect w.e.f.01.04.2022, while holding the Appellant liable to pay the compensation with right of recovery against the Own