Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Insurance Company"). Also heard the learned Sr. counsel Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, who appears for the respondent Jugal Kishor Sharma, who was the owner of the goods carrying vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25-C-5835. The following order will dispose of both Revisions filed by the Insurance Company against the decisions of the MAC Tribunal, Guwahati. 2. While proceeding towards Chabua from Dibrugarh on 03.11.2003, the truck of the respondent was involved in an accident and the police report of the accident indicates that 2(two) persons, namely, Tear Singh Mirdha and Pinki Mirdha died in the accident and about 6 other passengers travelling in that truck were injured. As the accidental vehicle was insured as a goods carrying commercial vehicle under the Insurance Company, two separate claims were filed by the family members of the deceased victims, under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These claim petitions were registered as the MAC Case No. 2328/2003 on behalf of the victim Tear Singh Mirdha and the MAC Case No. 2327/2003 on behalf of the victim Pinki Mirdha. Both the MAC cases were settled in conciliation proceeding(s) on 23.04.2004, whereby the MAC Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, ordered payment of Rs. 2.40 lakh, in respect of MAC Case No. 2328/2003 and Rs. 1.40 lakh, in respect of MAC Case No. 2327/2003 and these two Revision petitions arise out of these two proceedings. 3. But alleging that the conciliation awards were forced upon them, the insurance company filed the application(s) on 16.07.2005 before the Tribunal, where the company alleged that the settlements were not voluntary and thrust upon the company, by ignoring their prayer for awaiting the investigation report. It was further stated that the claim petitions were filed before the Guwahati MACT with false permanent address of the victims by showing them to be residents of Guwahati and accordingly it was alleged that fraud was the basis for the settlements. Thus prayer was made for recall of the settlement order(s) dated 23.04.2004 or to alternately permit the insurance company to recover the settlement amounts from the owner of the truck, who was carrying gratuitous passengers not covered under the insurance policy for the goods vehicle. 4. Thus prayer was made for recall of the settlement order(s) dated 23.04.2004 or to alternately permit the insurance company to recover the settlement amounts from the owner of the truck, who was carrying gratuitous passengers not covered under the insurance policy for the goods vehicle. 4. However, through the impugned order(s) dated 31.08.2009, the learned Tribunal dismissed the applications of the insurance company by observing that since the awards were passed on the basis of compromise/settlement arrived at by the contesting parties, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to alter the awards and accordingly the applications of the insurance company were dismissed. 5. Assailing the legality of the impugned decisions of the MAC Tribunal, Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel submits that the insured truck is not entitled to carry any passengers and she refers the statement given by the truck owner Jugal Kishor Sharma on 03.06.2004 to project that the victims were travelling unauthorisedly as passengers in the goods carrying vehicle. She refers to the police report given in the Chabua P.S. Case No. 100/2003 to project that the TATA 207 Truck was ferrying 35/40 persons to Chabua from a cultural programme in the Dibrugarh T.V. Centre, when it met with the accident at about 5.30 P.M. on 03.11.2003, resulting in fatal injuries to two passengers and other injuries to 6 passengers travelling in the truck. 6. The petitioner refers to the insurance policy to project that a goods carrying commercial vehicle is not authorized to carry any passenger and therefore the counsel argues that the insurance company could not have been burdened to pay for the gratuitous passengers carried illegally by the truck owner. 7. Exploring the ambit of the High Court's power when compensation is secured by playing fraud on the MAC Tribunal, the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2000) 3 SCC 581 , declared as follows: "3. "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley). 4. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley). 4. For a High Court in India to say that it has no power even to consider the contention that the awards secured are the by-products of stark fraud played on a tribunal, the plenary power conferred on the High Court by the Constitution may become a mirage and people's faith in the efficacy of the High Courts would corrode. We would have appreciated if the Tribunal or at least the High Court had considered the plea and found them unsustainable on merits, if they are meritless. But when the courts pre-empted the Insurance Company by slamming the doors against them, this Court has to step in and salvage the situation." 8. Placing reliance on the above decision, Ms. R.D. Mozumdar submits that when the victims do not reside within the jurisdiction of the Guwahati Tribunal and are permanent residents of Dibrugarh district, fraudulent claims were raised by giving fake address and therefore since the resultant awards were obtained by playing fraud, the decisions of the Tribunal should be corrected. 9. Representing the respondent truck owner, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. counsel however submits that the insurance company had belatedly approached the Tribunal eight months after the conciliation awards and they were also late in challenging the decisions of the MAC Tribunal in this Court. Therefore, the Sr. counsel argues that the applications of the insurance company should not be entertained. 10. What is glaring in the instant case is that compensations were claimed for victims, who were travelling unauthorisedly in a goods carrying vehicle. Moreover to prevent proper investigation of the claims by the insurance company, the victims were falsely shown to be permanent residents of Guwahati, whereas they are permanent residents of the Bhokel Tea Estate in the Dibrugarh district. More importantly, the insurance company could not have been fastened with any liability on account of gratuitous passengers who were ferried unauthorisedly in a goods carrying vehicle since liability for such passengers rest with the vehicle owner. [See: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati, (2007) 9 SCC 486 ]. 11. More importantly, the insurance company could not have been fastened with any liability on account of gratuitous passengers who were ferried unauthorisedly in a goods carrying vehicle since liability for such passengers rest with the vehicle owner. [See: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati, (2007) 9 SCC 486 ]. 11. In the above facts, when compensation was secured by playing fraud on the Tribunal, the technical objection of the vehicle owner can't be accepted as the entertainment of the delay objection will defeat justice. Therefore considering the ratio of Rajendra Singh (supra), it has to be declared that the MAC Tribunal was competent to recall its award, if the same is found to be obtained by practicing fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, the learned Tribunal's decisions to reject the applications of the Insurance Company are held to be unsustainable and accordingly the Tribunal's impugned decisions are set aside. 12. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 , held that the insurance company is entitled to recover the wrongly awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle and such claim can be entertained by the Tribunal itself. In view of this decision and since the awarded amounts were disbursed to the claimants by the insurance company, the petitioner is permitted to recover the same from the truck owner through the forum of the MAC Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 13. With the above order, both cases are allowed to the extent indicated. No cost.