Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, as well as Mr. R. C. Paul, the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This application for review of the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No.90/2009 has been filed by the Review Petitioners/Claimants.

3. This Review Petition is mainly filed on the ground that the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 90/2009 is manifest with error apparent on the face of record in as much as it had wrongly applied the precedent in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 in the instant case as the facts and circumstances of this case do not justify application of the said precedent in the instant case.

4. The review petitioners/claimants had filed MAC Case No. 74/2005 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh-cum-Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of their husband/father in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 14.01.2005. The husband/father of the review petitioners, namely, late Dibakar Gohain was driving a motorcycle and coming from Chabua Jeraigaon towards Tinsukia A.T. Road when due to mechanical defect in the motorcycle an accident occurred and the late Dibakar Gohain sustained injuries in the accident and he was brought to Aditya Nursing Home.

5. On 25.01.2005, the late Dibakar Gohain succumbed to his injuries in the nursing home and on his death the review petitioners filed the claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Claiming compensation for the death of their husband/father in the claim case the claimants/review petitioners adduced evidence of three witnesses and exhibited 11 documents whereas the opposite party had adduced evidence of one DW and exhibited no document.

6. Ultimately, by judgment and award dated 15.11.2008, the claim petition was allowed and the Insurance Company/the opposite party No.1 was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.13,33,710/- to the claimants/review petitioners within a month of the date of the award along with an interest and the rate of 5% from the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the said amount.

7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh, the Insurance Company filed a MAC Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which was registered as MAC Appeal No. 90/2009, wherein the main plea taken by the appellant Insurance Company was that the deceased being the driver of the offending vehicle and being a representative of the owner cannot be regarded as a third party in the instant case.

8. It was pleaded by the appellant in their memo of appeal that the policy in question covered the bodily injuries and death caused to the third party only whereas the deceased being the representative of the owner cannot be regarded as third party and, therefore, was not covered under the policy of insurance. It was also pleaded by the appellant that the accident took place due to the fault of the driver himself and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner.

9. By the impugned order dated 23.04.2014, the appeal was allowed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi, (Supra), wherein it was held that when the rider himself commits the accident there is no liability on the part of the insurer to pay the compensation and accordingly the appeal was allowed.

10. For the sake of convenience, the order under review is quoted here in below.

“DATE OF ORDER: 23/04/2014 The deceased was a rider of a motor cycle. It is said that the motorcycle met with an accident and the rider died and the dependents of the rider filed a claim petition against the owner and the insurer. The Tribunal has awarded compensation and directed the insurer to pay the compensation with interest @ 5% from the date of filing of th