JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) assailing the award dated 12.10.1998 (Annexure1) passed by learned 2nd Motor Accident Tribunal, Cuttack (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Misc. Case No. 664/88 filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), in which the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/-with 9% interest thereon to the claimant-opposite party No.1 along with cost of Rs.500/-holding the petitioner-Insurance Company liable to pay the said compensation. 2. The undisputed facts which led the petitioner to file this writ petition are that on 22.05.1988, the opposite party no.1 along with others were travelling as gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage (Truck) bearing registration No. OSC 4797, which met it an accident, in which the opposite party no.1 along with others sustained injuries. Several claim cases were filed by the injured persons along with the opposite party no.1. The claim case filed by the opposite party no.1 was registered as Misc. Case No.664 of 1988. Learned Tribunal holding that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/-in favour of the claimant opposite party no.1. As the offending Truck was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company covering the date of accident, it was made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle (opposite party no.2) in the writ petition. 3. The plea of the Insurance Company before learned Tribunal was that since the opposite party no.1 along with others were traveling as gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage (Truck), there was fundamental breach of condition of the Insurance Policy. As such, the Insurance Company could not have been made liable to pay the compensation. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company contended that learned Tribunal, without taking into consideration the plea of the Insurance Company, as aforesaid, made it liable to pay the compensation. As such, the Insurance Company is constrained to file this writ petition, as no appeal lies against an award, where the amount in dispute is below Rs.10,000/-. 4. Mr. Dutta further contended that in view of the settled position of law as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. As such, the Insurance Company is constrained to file this writ petition, as no appeal lies against an award, where the amount in dispute is below Rs.10,000/-. 4. Mr. Dutta further contended that in view of the settled position of law as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaushalya Devi and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2252 , the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation as the deceased was travelling in a Truck (goods carriage) as a gratuitous passenger. As such, the finding of learned Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation is erroneous and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-claimant relying upon the decisions reported in National Insurance Company Vs. Baljit Kaur and others, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 , Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saju P. Paul, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 41 as well as Manguli Juanga and others Vs. Dinabandhu Sahu and another, reported in 2016 (2) OLR 448, submitted that the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted to award just compensation in a vehicular accident. The compensation is awarded to save the claimant and his/her family from distress. In that view of the matter, learned Tribunal has rightly held the petitioner-Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner of the offending Truck. Learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,000/-as compensation. As such, the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised to deprive the opposite party No.1-injured from the enjoying the fruit of the award. In the meantime, almost 30 years have already elapsed and the opposite party no.1 is yet to receive the awarded amount. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record as well as decisions cited from both sides. The only question in this case that falls for determination is that whether the Insurance Company can be held liable to indemnify the owner of the offending Truck, which is a goods carriage in which the injured opposite party No.1 was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaushalya Devi’s case (supra) held as follows: “13. The deceased was not the owner of any goods which were being carried in the truck. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaushalya Devi’s case (supra) held as follows: “13. The deceased was not the owner of any goods which were being carried in the truck. Admitted position is that he had been traveling in the truck for the purpose of collecting the empty boxes. He was a vegetable dealer. He was not traveling in the truck as owner of the goods viz. the vegetables. He was traveling in the truck for a purpose other than the one for which he was entitled to travel in a public carriage goods vehicle. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Brij Mohan (supra) wherein the Bench cited with approval the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 223 wherein it was stated: "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 travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor." {See also Prem Kumar & Ors. v. Prahlad Dev & Ors., 2008 (1) Scale 531 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj, 2008 (1) Scale 727 }” 7. There cannot be any quarrel over the ratio decided in Kaushalya Devi (supra). Similar view has also been taken in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 243 , wherein it has been held that carrying a gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage for whom no premium is paid, is a fundamental breach of condition of the insurance policy. Thus, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation amount as awarded and the insurer cannot be asked to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-20 of a larger Bench in Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) also held as follows: “20. Thus, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation amount as awarded and the insurer cannot be asked to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-20 of a larger Bench in Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) also held as follows: “20. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.” However, after a detailed discussion, the Hon’ble Court at para-21 of the said case (Baljit Kaur) held as follows: “21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable (?). We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decisions of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani’s (supra). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle”. 8. Taking into consideration the ratio decided in Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) as well as other cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saju P. Paul’s case (supra) held as follows: “26. 8. Taking into consideration the ratio decided in Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) as well as other cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saju P. Paul’s case (supra) held as follows: “26. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur and Challa Upendra Rao should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, claimant was 28 years’ old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The insurance company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 01.08.2011 and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent No.1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court along-with accrued interest. The insurance company (appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent No. 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the insurance company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in the case of Challa Upendra Rao”. 9. This Court in the case of Manguli Juanga (supra) placing reliance on Saju P. Paul’s case (supra) held that in order to ensure prompt payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased, the Insurance Company should be directed to pay compensation amount to the claimants with a right of recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle in due process of law. 10. In a recent decision in Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 2017 (Manuara Khatun & others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others) arising out of SLP (C) No. 5805 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 3065 of 2017 (Mamoni Saikia Mohanty & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors.) decided on 21.02.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held as follows: “18. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others) arising out of SLP (C) No. 5805 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 3065 of 2017 (Mamoni Saikia Mohanty & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors.) decided on 21.02.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held as follows: “18. The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In Saju P. Paul’s case (supra) also having held that the victim was “gratuitous passenger”, this Court issued directions against the insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings.” 11. In view of the discussions made above, we have no hesitation to hold that it is not only the duty of the Tribunal to see that a just and adequate compensation is awarded, but also to ensure hassle free payment of compensation to the claimants with promptitude in order to save the claimants from distress. It is, accordingly, directed that the petitioner-Insurance Company shall deposit the awarded amount within a period of six weeks hence, in terms of the impugned award under Annexure-1, which shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant-opposite party no.1 on proper identification. The petitioner-Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner-opposite party no.2 as per law. 12. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award under Anneuxre-1 so far as Misc. Case No. 664 of 1988 is concerned, the writ petition is disposed of.