JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The judgment dated 4th September, 1995 passed by the learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Southern Division, Berhampur in MAC Case No.69/89 (207/88) is assailed in this appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company. 2. A petition was filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by present respondent No.1 claiming a compen¬sation of Rs.1,00,000.00 on account of death of her husband who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. Respondent No.1 who was the petitioner in the said case averred that the deceased was travelling in a trekker bearing registration number ORL 1587 and due to the negligent driving of the driver of the said trekker the accident occurred with the aforesaid fateful consequences. The owner of the offending trekker who was respondent No.2 in the MAC in his written statement while admitting that the deceased was travelling with his family members in his trekker took the stand that while the said vehicle was running, he jumped there from anticipating accident, as a result of which he sus¬tained injuries and succumbed to that and thus the accident occurred solely due to his negligence. The present appellant-Insurance Company which was respondent No.1 in the said MAC in its written statement took the plea that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending trekker and was not covered under the insurance policy of the said vehi¬cle for which it was not liable to pay any compensation. After discussing the evidence and other factors, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment has awarded a compensation of Rs.60,400.000 with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from 4.5.1995 till realization with direction to the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the same to respondent No.1-petitioner. 3. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. Assailing the judgment of the learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken by the appellant before the Tribunal that the deceased was a passenger in the offending trekker and a gratuitous passenger being not covered under the insurance policy of the said vehicle the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials on record and that the compensation awarded is excessive. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials on record and that the compensation awarded is excessive. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-petitioner however repudiates the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Admittedly the deceased was travelling in the offending trekker. It is not possible for a person to know whether the vehicle in which he is travelling has a valid insurance policy, whether it has licence to carry passengers, whether it is regis¬tered as a public carrier/taxi nor can know the conditions of its insurance policy. Therefore in the event of death of such a person owing to accident of the said vehicle its insurer cannot be permitted to disown its liability to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the person who died and the claimants should not suffer. The accident occurred in the year 1988. Long eighteen years have passed in the meanwhile. Respondent No.1, a poor widow is eagerly waiting for compensation. Considering all these cir¬cumstances, this Court in a spirit of Lok Adalat feels that the appellant-Insurance Company should pay a compensation of Rs.50,000.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 7% per annum from 4.5.1995 till realization as against Rs.66,400.00 with 9% interest awarded by the learned Tribunal, and directs according¬ly. 5. Carrying passengers in a trekker which was a private vehicle being a breach of conditions of its insurance policy, for such breach the proof claimant is not to suffer. It is well set¬tled by the Supreme Court that in such a case it is for the In¬surance Company to first pay the compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of such position of law and further in view of the provi¬sions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court di¬rects the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the entire amount as per this judgment, i.e. Rs.50,000.00 with 7% interest thereon from 4.5.1995 till realization, to the widow-respondent No.1. It is submitted that the entries amount as per the judgment of the learned Tribunal has been deposited before this Court. Therefore this Court further directs that out of the said deposit, the amount as per this judgment, i.e. Rs.50,000.00 with 7% thereon from 4.5.1995, be calculated and disbursed to the widow-respon¬dent No.1 in terms of the stipulations made in the impugned judg¬ment. Therefore this Court further directs that out of the said deposit, the amount as per this judgment, i.e. Rs.50,000.00 with 7% thereon from 4.5.1995, be calculated and disbursed to the widow-respon¬dent No.1 in terms of the stipulations made in the impugned judg¬ment. The balance, if any, be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company by a crossed-cheque/draft. This Court grants liberty to the appellant-Insurance Company to recover the amount paid by it from the owner of the offending trekker in consonance with law, if so advised. The Misc.Appeal is accordingly disposed of. This judgment having been passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court makes it clear that it shall not be a precedent for other cases. Misc. Appeal disposed of.