JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. Then present First Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 29.09.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vyara, Dist. Surat in MACP No.1049 of 2002. The said MACP was filed by four claimants-parents of the deceased and two sisters of the deceased. 2. The facts of the case are set out in para-2 of the judgment and award which are to the effect that 20.09.2002 was a day for 'Ganpati visharjan'. At 01.10 pm, trailer No.GJ-P-X-891 attached to tractor No.GJ-P-N-9025 was with the procession. In that procession, persons from village, police staff, staff from Mamlatdar office and home-guards personnel were present. In that procession, deceased Divyangkumar and his friends were sitting in the trailer (aforesaid) attached to the tractor (aforesaid). When the procession reached near chowk of village Niyol, driver of the tractor, without noticing the bump, drove the tractor in speed and that resulted into fateful accident. The deceased was thrown out of the trailer and his stomach was crushed by the back wheel of the trailer. He sustained serious injuries. He was immediately taken to 'Sanjivani' hospital and from there, he was sent to the Hospital naked 'Ashkta Ashram', where he was declared dead by the Doctor. 2.1 It is the case of respondent No.1 herein, who is appearing party-in-person, that he was given to understand that complaint of the accident is registered and 'Palsana' police has registered an offence and has started investigation into the matter, but when opponent No.1-claimant (father of the deceased) found that no steps are taken in the matter, on 28.10.2002, he reported matter to the Police sub Inspector, Palsana Police Station, DSP, Dist. Surat (Rural) and Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad. It is thereafter that the police registered an offence. 3. The case of the Insurance Company before the Hon'ble Tribunal was to the effect that the applicants (claimants) are not 'heirs' of the deceased and they were not dependent on the deceased. The Insurance Company also contended that the age and income of the deceased ought to have been proved by leading convincing evidence. It was also contended that income of the deceased claimed in the claim petition is inflated one and the amount of compensation awarded is excessive. The Insurance Company also contended that the age and income of the deceased ought to have been proved by leading convincing evidence. It was also contended that income of the deceased claimed in the claim petition is inflated one and the amount of compensation awarded is excessive. 3.1 Besides that, it was contended by the Insurance Company that 'driver of the tractor did not possess any licence'; that the Insurance Company does not admit that on the date of the accident, the deceased was in the vehicle in question and that he had sustained injuries and that he had died in accident on account of injuries sustained by him in accident. (emphasis supplied). 4. The Hon'ble Tribunal took into consideration the documentary evidence which is enlisted in para-5, which is as under:- (1) A copy of the complaint Exh-42 (2) Panchnama of place of offence Exh-43 (3) Receipt of tractor-trailer involved in the accident Exh-44 (4) Registration particulars of the vehicle no. GJ-5-F-871 Exh-45 (5) Registration particulars of the vehicle no. GJ-5-N-9025 Exh-46 (6) Hospital bill of Divyang Exh- 47 to 51 (7) Permanent Account Number of deceased Divyang Exh-52 (8) Income tax assessment of the deceased for the year 2000 to 2001 Exh-53 (9) Account of the sugarcane of Sugar Factory of deceased Divyang Exh-54 (10) Leaving certificate of deceased Divyang Exh-55 (11) Certificate of the deceased issued by Jems Institute of Technology Exh-56 (12) Certificate issued by Kholvad Sitaram Seva Trust Exh-57 (13) Death certificate of the deceased Exh-58 (14) A copy of charge-sheet filed against the Opponent no.1 Exh-59 (15) Birth certificate of the deceased Exh-60 (16) Newspaper regarding tribute paid to the deceased by Tarun Desai Exh-61 (17) Extract of 8/A of the account no. 171 of the applicant no.1 Exh-62 (18) Name of the deceased and the applicant no.1 in 7/12 extract of block no. 193 Exh-63 (19) A copy of village format no. 7/12 of block no. 199 Exh-64 (20) Name of the deceased and the applicant no.1 in 7/12 extract of block no. 200 Exh-65 (21) Copy of 7/12 extract of block no. 193 Exh-63 (19) A copy of village format no. 7/12 of block no. 199 Exh-64 (20) Name of the deceased and the applicant no.1 in 7/12 extract of block no. 200 Exh-65 (21) Copy of 7/12 extract of block no. 123 Exh-65-A (22) A copy of bail-bond of the opponent Exh-66 (23) A copy of driving license of the Opponent no.1 Exh-67 (24) A copy of policy of GJ-5-N-9025 Exh-68 (25) A copy of policy of trailer Exh-69 4.1 The Hon'ble Tribunal also took into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the Insurance Company vide Exh.83, which is as under:- (1) A copy of policy of tractor no. GJ-5-N-9025 and trailer Exh-84 (2) Compliance certificate under section 64-VB of the Insurance Act. Exh-85 4.2 The Hon'ble Tribunal also took into consideration the oral evidence which was led before it, which is enlisted in para-6, which is as under:- (1) Statement of Bhikhu Narottam Desai Exh 73 (2) Statement of Kishor Ishwarbhai Exh 74 (3) Statement of Hirenbhai Bhikhubhai Exh 75 (4) Statement of Amit Bhikhubhai Patel Exh 76 (5) Statement of Kamleshbhai Dhanjibhai Ahir Exh 77 (6) A certified copy of judgment Exh 78 (7) A copy of driving license of the Opponent no.1 Exh 79 4.3 After taking into consideration the rival submissions, the Hon'ble Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:- (1) Whether the claimants prove that on account of negligent driving of opponent No.1, the accident occurred in which deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death? (2) Whether claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If yes, what is the amount of compensation and from whom that compensation is to be received? (3) What is the order and award? 4.4 The Hon'ble Tribunal answered Issue No.-(1) in affirmative and Issue Nos.-(2) and (3) were answered as per the order. 4.5 The Hon'ble Tribunal appreciated the evidence led before it in para-21 and finally came to conclusion that an amount of Rs.10,25,000/- is required to be awarded. The Hon'ble Tribunal did record in para-26 that:- "(26) Though the Claim Petition is filed for Rs.8,00,000/-, in light of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Beni Bai & Anr. 4.5 The Hon'ble Tribunal appreciated the evidence led before it in para-21 and finally came to conclusion that an amount of Rs.10,25,000/- is required to be awarded. The Hon'ble Tribunal did record in para-26 that:- "(26) Though the Claim Petition is filed for Rs.8,00,000/-, in light of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Beni Bai & Anr. v. Chhandilal & Anr., reported in 2005 ACJ 816 , the Tribunal is awarding the amount in excess to the amount claimed in the petition." 4.6 The Hon'ble Tribunal did consider the following decisions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court:- (i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Swaminathan & Ors., reported in II (2006) ACC 701 (SC). (ii) Parvat v. Sheikh Ejaj & Ors., reported in II (2006) ACC 115. (iii) Rohit v. Swarna Kaur & Anr., reported in II (2007) ACC 689. 4.7 The Hon'ble Tribunal passed the final order that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Only), jointly and severally from the opponents with 9% interest. The Hon'ble Tribunal also passed an order to the effect that if any amount is deposited, the same should be adjusted. If the amount of Court fee is due and payable, the same should be deducted. After the aforesaid deduction, opponent Nos.1 and 2 (claimants) should receive 40% each and claimant Nos.3 and 4 should receive 10% each. Out of this amount which is receivable by the claimants, 70% of the amount should be deposited in a Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years in Fixed Deposit. The Hon'ble Tribunal also provided that the applicants-claimants will not be entitled to raise loan on that deposit and will not be able to mortgage or withdraw in any manner. The remaining 30% amount was ordered to be paid by account payee cheque. 5. The Hon'ble Tribunal also provided that the applicants-claimants will not be entitled to raise loan on that deposit and will not be able to mortgage or withdraw in any manner. The remaining 30% amount was ordered to be paid by account payee cheque. 5. On 24.07.2014, the matter was listed before this Court with office submission and the Court passed the following order:- "In light of the Office submissions dated 22nd July 2014, and in light of the contents of letters dated 3rd April 2014/17th July 2014 written by Shri Bhikhubhai Nagarbhai Mistry to the Honourable the Chief Justice, the Registry is directed to send an intimation to the respondent by R.P.A.D. stating that the matter is fixed on 9th September 2014 and he can remain present on that day to present his case. The matter is adjourned to 9th September 2014." 5.1 On 09.09.2014, respondent No.1 remained present and the Court passed the following order:- "On office making submission and taking into consideration the contents of letters dated 03.04.2014 and 17.07.2014 written by Shri Bhikhubhai Nagarbhai Mistry to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Registry was directed to send intimation to the respondent by RPAD stating that, 'the matter is fixed on 09.09.2014 and therefore, he shall remain present on that day to present his case.' Today, Shri Bhikhubhai Nagarbhai Mistry is present before the Court. But then, after the matter is heard for quite some time, he requests that he be granted some time to enable him to come with all the papers. He states that he has not come with all the papers. At the request of Party-in-Person, the matter is kept to 17.09.2014. It is clarified that it is only on account of the letters written by Shri Bhikhubhai Nagarbhai Mistry dated 03.04.2014 and 17.07.2014 to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice that the Registry made the submission and the Court deemed it proper, as a part of its duty, to give early hearing to this First Appeal. Registry to ensure that R & P is received on or before 16.09.2014, if required by taking services of special messenger." 5.2. On 09.09.2014, Party-in-Person Shri Bhikhubhai Nagarbhai Mistry requested for time, the same was granted and the matter was kept today. 6. Registry to ensure that R & P is received on or before 16.09.2014, if required by taking services of special messenger." 5.2. On 09.09.2014, Party-in-Person Shri Bhikhubhai Nagarbhai Mistry requested for time, the same was granted and the matter was kept today. 6. Today Party-in-Person Shri Bhikhubhai Nagarbhai Mistry has submitted various documents along with a write-up in Gujarati, a copy of which is given to learned Advocate Mr.Mazmudar for the appellant-Insurance Company. Party-in-Person has produced various orders passed in the matter which are enlisted in the write-up. 7. On perusal of papers, it is found that the First Appeal was filed by the appellant-Insurance Company along with Civil Application (for condonation of delay) No.12552 of 2008, wherein the Division Bench of this Court issued Rule on 18.02.2009 and thereafter condoned the delay by order dated 01.04.2009, which reads as under:- "Heard learned advocates for the parties. Considering the averments made in the application and after hearing learned advocates for the parties, this application is allowed in terms of Para 6(A) and it stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Main appeal may be listed for hearing on 18.04.2009." 7.1 On 18.04.2009, the Division Bench admitted the First Appeal and passed the following in Civil Application (for stay) No.4543 of 2009:- "1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Mazmudar for the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has made a statement at the Bar that the applicant will deposit the entire awarded amount with cost and interest with the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from today. 3. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with cost and interest with the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from today. If the applicant will not deposit the awarded amount within stipulated time, stay shall automatically stand vacated. 4. In view of the above, the implementation and execution of the award dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. (Aux), Vyara, Surat in M.A.C.P. No.1049 of 2002 is stayed during the pendency and final disposal of the appeal. 5. The amount, if any, deposited by the Insurance Company in the High Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Court below. 6. The original claimants are at liberty to approach the Court for withdrawal by filing an application before this Court. 5. The amount, if any, deposited by the Insurance Company in the High Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Court below. 6. The original claimants are at liberty to approach the Court for withdrawal by filing an application before this Court. If any application for withdrawal is filed, the same shall be considered and decided on merits. 7. The application stands disposed of accordingly." 7.2 After that, the respondents filed Civil Application No.2318 of 2010, which came to be heard and disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 03.03.2010, which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The 50% of the amount deposited with the Tribunal will be available to be disbursed to the claimants on the condition that they will furnish a solvent security with a surety, that if in case an adverse order is passed in appeal, they will return the money with current rate of interest. The rest 50% of the amount with the Tribunal will be invested in a fixed deposit which earns recurring interest. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly. DS permitted." 8. From the aforesaid orders passed by this Court in Civil Application No.4543 of 2009 and Civil Application No. 2318 of 2010, the final picture which emerges is that, `the claimants were allowed to withdraw 50% amount with a clear understanding that the withdrawal is subject to the final orders that may be passed in appeal', the relevant part of the order reads as under:- "..... The 50% of the amount deposited with the Tribunal will be available to be disbursed to the claimants on the condition that they will furnish a solvent security with a surety, that if in case an adverse order is passed in appeal, they will return the money with current rate of interest......" (emphasis supplied) 9. Learned Advocate Mr.Mazmudar for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that it is a matter of record that the tractor and trailer had an 'act policy' only and therefore, risk of the accident to person like the deceased was not covered. That being so, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. In this regard, learned Advocate relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of General Manager, United India Insurance Co. That being so, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. In this regard, learned Advocate relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.Laxmi & Ors., reported in 2009 ACJ 104 , wherein the Hon'ble the Apex Court laid down in no uncertain terms in para-3 as under:- "3. ..... It was pointed out that admittedly, the policy of insurance was an Act policy and as the deceased was a pillion rider and also gratuitous passenger and hence, not a third party, he cannot claim compensation from the Insurance Company which insured the vehicle." 9.1 The Hon'ble the Apex Court referred to its earlier judgment in para-7 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, reported in 2003 ACJ 1 (SC). Para-7 reads as under:- "7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) it has been noted as follows: (SCC p. 235, paras 25-27) "25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a 'goods carriage'. 26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words 'any person' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. 'a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 27. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place." 9.2 The Hon'ble the Apex Court also referred to its earlier judgment in para-8 in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, reported in 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC). Para-8 reads as under:- "10. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC) it has been noted as follows: (SCC p. 412, para 21) "21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC) it has been noted as follows: (SCC p. 412, para 21) "21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger." 9.3 Finally, the Hon'ble the Apex Court held in para-9 as under:- "In view of what has been stated by this Court in Asha Rani and Tilak Singh cases, the order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside and that of MACT is restored." 9.4 The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court is followed by this Court in First Appeal No. 356 of 2010 with First Appeal No. 357 of 2010, which were decided by judgment and order dated 27.08.2010, wherein this Court held that, "when there is an act policy, Insurance Company will not be liable to any bodily injury or loss of life of a passenger in goods vehicle, who is a gratuitous passenger". 10. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed. The appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. 10.1 As the claimants have chosen to represent their case Party-in-Person, the Court feels its duty to clarify that allowing of this appeal does not exonerate other opponents in MACP, viz. opponent No.1- Mr. Thakorbhai Lallubhai Desai and opponent No.2- Mr. Harshadbhai Ishwarbhai Naik. It will be open for the claimants to recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Hon'ble Tribunal from opponent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law. 10.2 Taking a lenient view in the matter, the claimants are directed to deposit only the principal amount withdrawn by them in the Hon'ble Tribunal, which in turn shall be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company. The claimants are exempted from depositing the interest on principal amount. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to waive the interest amount. Meaning thereby, the same shall not be recovered from the claimants. The claimants are exempted from depositing the interest on principal amount. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to waive the interest amount. Meaning thereby, the same shall not be recovered from the claimants. However, it will be open for the appellant- Insurance Company to recover that interest amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 10.3 The amount which is lying with the Hon'ble Tribunal be returned to the Insurance Company forthwith with accumulated interest on that amount, as the amount was deposited in a Fixed Deposit. 10.4 Registry is directed to send R & P to the Hon'ble Tribunal immediately but not later than one week from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Ordered accordingly.