ORDER (ORAL) Insurance company, as appellant, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 30.07.2012 passed by the MACT, Nagaon in MAC Case No. 87/2009. The case of the claimant was that on 30.10.2008 at about 4/4.15 p.m., there was a vehicular accident involving motor vehicle No. AS-01/Z-4034 (TATA SUMO) when the vehicle was indiscriminately fired by the extremists on road at Majuwari Diyungmukh. As a result, one Moon Saikia and other occupant of the vehicle lost their lives at the spot. The accident took place due to negligent and careless driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant has claimed that an award of Rs. 8,50,000/- be passed as compensation. 2. The opposite party/insurance company contested the case by filing written statement and denied its liability. The insurance company stated that the vehicle of the owner was requisitioned by the Government for police duty and unfortunate accident took place when the vehicle was under requisition by State Government. In that view of the matter the vehicle was not under the control of the owner or of the insurer and so neither of them is liable to compensate the victims. 3. The learned Tribunal after consideration of the materials available on record passed its award on 31.07.2012 holding that claimant is entitled to an award of Rs. 4,81,136/- and the present appellant being the insurer was held liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle otherwise done in view of the fact that the vehicle was under valid insurance coverage. Preferring an appeal against aforesaid judgment and award dated 31.07.2012, the appellant has claimed that since the vehicle was not under the control and possession of the owner when the accident had taken place, the liability of the insurance company cannot extend to the unfortunate incident. Under such circumstances, it is the State who is to make payment of compensation. Insurance company has not challenged the quantum of compensation but has merely challenged its liability. 4. I have heard Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A Chamua, learned counsel for the claimant. None appears for the authority which had requisitioned the vehicle under Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968. 5. In support of his argument, Mr. 4. I have heard Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A Chamua, learned counsel for the claimant. None appears for the authority which had requisitioned the vehicle under Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968. 5. In support of his argument, Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 414 . Relying on the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held in this reported case that State would be responsible to make compensation to the claimant and not the registered owner of the vehicle. Since registered owner was absolved from the liability of making payment of compensation, the question of liability of the insurer cannot arise. In paragraph 10 of this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provision of earlier Act as well as the present Motor Vehicles Act in this regard. Paragraph 10 of this judgment is quoted below:- “10. Parliament either under the 1939 Act or the 1988 Act did not take into consideration a situation of this nature. No doubt, Respondents 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owners of the vehicle despite the fact that the same was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power conferred upon him under the Representation of the People Act. A vehicle is requisitioned by a statutory authority, pursuant to the provisions contained in a statute. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put in charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that the vehicle would not be driven in the night. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that the vehicle would not be driven in the night. The purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. For the period the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/or its officers, the owner is only entitled to payment of compensation therefor in terms of the Act but he cannot not (sic) exercise any control, thereupon. In a situation of this nature, this Court must proceed on the presumption that Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view.” 6. This judgment was followed by this Court in the Case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalin Mawlieh and ors reported in 2008 (3) GLT 194. That being the position, there is no escape from holding that insurance company cannot be made liable to make payment of compensation in this case. It is admitted position of fact that the vehicle was under police duty on being requisitioned by the State of Assam. That being the position in this case, also the owner did not have any control over the vehicle. The liability of insurance company arises because of insurance contract with owner. There was no contract with the State. Having so found, it is to be held that the appeal has merit. It is accordingly allowed. 7. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the State which requisitioned the vehicle in question shall be liable to make payment of the awarded amount, namely, Rs. 4,81,136/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of passing of the order till realisation. The other part of the judgment and award shall remain as it is. 8. No order as to cost. 9. Return the Lower Courts record. 10. 4,81,136/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of passing of the order till realisation. The other part of the judgment and award shall remain as it is. 8. No order as to cost. 9. Return the Lower Courts record. 10. Earlier while passing the impugned award, the learned Tribunal had directed the insurance company to make payment within a period of 3 (three) months but for the stay order, passed by this Court, the payment was not made. Now, as the insurance company has been absolved from the liability and State authority which requisitioned the vehicle is found to be liable, it shall be the duty of the respondent No. 5 to comply with the award passed by the learned Tribunal within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.