I.A. ANSARI, J.— By the impugned award, dated 07.11.2001, passed, in MAC Case No. 787(K)/2000, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, the claimant-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein have been awarded, in all, Rs. 5,60,000/- as compensation with directions, inter alia, to the appellant, as insurer of the offending vehicle, to make payment of the said awarded amount within a period of 30 days failing which interest shall be paid at the rate of 9% from the date of making of the claim application. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer has preferred this appeal on the ground that the victim, Sucha Singh, whose death, in a motor vehicular accident, led to the passing of the impugned award, was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, which was a goods carriage, and in view of the fact that the relevant insurance policy did not cover any gratuitous passenger, the insurer ought not to have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and that the liability to pay compensation, under the impugned award, ought to have been imposed on of the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the insurer-appellant and Mr. S. Goswami, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. On 15.07.1999, when Sucha Singh (since deceased), who was an army personnel, was travelling in a truck, bearing registration No. NL-04-A-1213, which is a goods carriage and belongs to respondent No. 6 herein, namely, Mutum Arjim Singh, the said truck met with an accident, Sucha Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries so sustained by him. The claimants, as legal representatives of the said deceased, made an application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the MV Act, 1988) seeking compensation. The claimants mentioned, at column number 10 of their claim application, that the said deceased was travelling, at the relevant point of time, as a gratuitous passenger. Notwithstanding, however, such a clear declaration of the fact by the claimant themselves that the said victim was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal held to the effect that since the vehicle was carrying goods of the Army and the said deceased was an Army personnel, he was not a gratuitous passenger. Notwithstanding, however, such a clear declaration of the fact by the claimant themselves that the said victim was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal held to the effect that since the vehicle was carrying goods of the Army and the said deceased was an Army personnel, he was not a gratuitous passenger. The finding, so reached by the learned Tribunal, is completely perverse inasmuch there is absolutely no material on record to show that the said deceased was travelling either as owner of the said goods or as a representative of the owner of the goods, which the offending vehicle was, at the relevant point of time, carrying. 4. Coupled with the above, when the case of the claimants themselves was that the said deceased a gratuitous passenger, there was no scope for the learned Tribunal to hold, particularly, when there was no cogent supporting evidence on record, in this regard, that the said deceased was not a gratuitous passenger. Situated thus, I hold that the said deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 5. What may, now, be pointed out is that though there is no dispute before this Court that the relevant insurance policy, on the date of the accident, did not cover gratuitous passengers and the insurer is not, strictly speaking, liable, in law, to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants, the fact remains that the accident took place on 15.07.99, the claim application was made on 30.05.2000 and the impugned award was passed on 07.11.2001. 6. While considering the present appeal, what may be noted is that in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 237 , the insurer was held liable to pay compensation even for gratuitous passengers. In terms of the decision, so pronounced, in Satpal Singh (supra), awards have been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, all over the country, fastening the insurers with the liability to indemnify the owners of goods carriage carrying gratuitous passengers. The decision, in Satpal Singh (supra), was, however, overruled in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 , and it was held that statutorily, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of a goods carriage if the owner incurs any liability arising out of carrying of a gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 , and it was held that statutorily, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of a goods carriage if the owner incurs any liability arising out of carrying of a gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage. The question, however, arose as to what would happen to those cases, where awards had already been passed imposing liability on the insurers to pay compensation to the claimants even in respect of gratuitous passengers. This question was answered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 , wherein the Court has held that since in terms of the decision in Satpal Singh (supra), the insurer was liable to pay compensation even for gratuitous passengers and this decision has been overruled in Asha Rani (supra), interest of justice would be served if the insurer is directed to 'satisfy the awarded amount, if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is, therefore, clear that the law laid down in Asha Rani (supra) has to be applied prospectively. The impugned award, in the present case, was, admittedly, passed before the decision in Asha Rani (supra) was pronounced. Considered thus, while the insurer-appellant may remain liable to satisfy the impugned award, necessary directions need to be passed, in this appeal, in order to protect, in the light of the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court, the financial interest of the claimants.-respondents. 7. In view of the decision in Baljit Kaur (supra), when the learned Tribunal has directed the insurer to make payment of the compensation, the directions, so given, cannot be set aside. However, in Pramod Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Mushtari Begum (Smt.) & Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 667 , and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 , the Apex Court has made it clear that before releasing the amount, awarded to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle, which carried the gratuitous passenger, shall be made to furnish security for the entire amount, which the insurer would be paying to the claimants and that the offending vehicle shall be attached as a part of the security. In short, the underlying principle, in Pramod Kumar Agarwal (supra) and Challa Bharathamma (supra), is that since the insurer is not statutorily liable to pay compensation in respect of a gratuitous passenger, yet the position of law being not clear, in this regard, until the decision, in Asha Rani (supra), was pronounced, imperative it is that while the insurer be made to pay to the claimant the compensation even in respect of gratuitous passengers, the financial interest of the insurer be protected by giving such directions as may be necessary in the facts of a given case. 8. In the light of the observations made in Challa Bharathamma (supra) and Pramod Kumar Agarwal (supra), it is hereby directed that before the awarded amount is realized in favour of the claim* ants-respondents in terms of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal shall obtain requisite security from the owner of the offending vehicle, in respect of the amount, which the insurer-appellant is required to pay in terms of the impugned award. The insurer shall take necessary steps, in this regard, within a period of 60 days from today. 9. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of. 10. No order as to costs. 11. Send back the LCR.