The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'Pay and Recover' in determining the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the claimant as a gratuitous passenger, based on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and relevant case law.

1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 6-10-2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) No.342 of 2010 awarding a compensation of Rs. 14,14,103/- together with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimant. MAC Appeal No.144 of 2012 is filed by the insurer for setting aside the impugned award on the ground that the claimant respondent No.1 was a gratuitous passenger and is not liable to satisfy the award so passed, whereas MAC Appeal No.1 of 2013 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts giving rise to both the appeals are that on 24-7-2010, the claimant was proceeding towards Badarghat Stadium in Auto Truck bearing registration No. TR-01-K-0713 allegedly loaded with wooden files and bamboos for doing construction work and when the vehicle reached Shekertote market, the vehicle fell down by the side of the road while negotiating a turning. According to the claimant/appellant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained several injuries on his body and was in a senseless condition and was taken to BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania where he got admitted as an indoor patient on 24-7-2010. After two days, he was shifted to AGMC and GBP Hospital, Agartala as indoor patient and was discharged on 21-8-2010 with an advice to attend the OPD of the Hospital. Accordingly, he attended the OPD of the Hospital. A major operation had to be performed by which the left hand below the shoulder of the claimant was amputated. The claimant is said to have become permanently disabled to the extent of 100% though the District Disability Board, West Tripura certified him to suffer permanent disability to the extent of over 80%. The claimant was 34 years old at the time of accident and used to earn Rs. 7,500/per month as a mason. The police registered a regular case over the accident i.e. Amtali P.S. Case No.79/2010 U/s 279/338 IPC. He claimed that he had incurred Rs. 1,00,000/- for his treatment and claimed a compensation of Rs. 31,50,000/-.

3. Both the owner of the vehicle, respondent 1, and the insurer, appellant, contested the claim petition and filed their respective affidavits. The respondent 1 took the stand that the averments of the claimant are all false and concocted, and submitted that if at all any compensation was payable, the same would be paid by the insurer as the vehicle was insured with them. The insurer, in the written statement, also submitted that the claim of the claimant was a false and based on a concocted story and that the vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and as per the terms of the policy, no passenger or person was allowed to travel in the vehicle in question. Nor was the claimant a labourer of the vehicle and as he was travelling in that vehicle not as a labourer, the policy did not cover him thereby absolving the insurer of any liability to satisfy the sward. The insurer, therefore, claimed that the claim petition was without merit and was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the vehicle met an accident on 24-7-2010 at about 9.45 AM near Sekerkote market on Agartala Bishalgarh road under Amtali PS due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioner Khudiram Das sustained injuries as a result of that accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation and, if so, what shall be the reasonable amount?

4. Who shall make the payment of compensation, if any,?

4. The claimant examined himself and one other witness to prove his claim and submitted some documents, which were marked as Exbt. 1 Series. The insurer examined one of its Deputy Managers as DW-1 to rebut the case of the claimant. The owner of the vehicle did not examine himself or any other witness to rebut the case of the claimant. At the conclusion of the trial, the