JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mrs. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent in MACApp No.13/2011. Also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent in MACApp No.12/2011. 2. In both these appeals, the common question raises is whether the vehicle No.AS-01E 8671 was under requisition by the State at the time of the accident. 3. The accident took place on 23-11-2004 at Telipara Kumargram involving vehicle No.AS-01E 8671 (Tata Sumo) and vehicle No.WGT-1545. Some police personal travelling in the vehicle No.AS-01E 8671, while chasing another vehicle suspecting transportation of incriminating articles, collided with the truck bearing No.WGT-1545, as a result of which, 6 (six) police persons including the victims of these appeals died. The legal heirs of victims filed MAC Case No.59/2005 and MAC Case No.61/2005 respectively. 4. The learned tribunal awarded Rs.7,90,000/- (seven lakhs ninety thousand) in MAC Case No.59/2005 and Rs.5,81,200/- (five lakhs eighty one thousand two hundred) in MAC Case No.61/2005. The learned Tribunal observed that the vehicle No. AS-01E 8671 was under requisition of the state and fixed the responsibility equally on both the vehicles. Since the tribunal held the vehicle No.AS-01E 8671 to be under requisition, the state was directed to pay 50% of the award in both the cases. The insurer of the vehicle No.WGT-1545 settled the matter with the claimants to the extent of their liability in MAC Case No.61/2005 and paid the compensation. In MAC Case No.59/2005 also the insurer of the vehicle No.WGT-1545 had paid its share as per apportionment made by the tribunal. 5. Now the State Government has filed the instant appeals assailing the award on the ground that the vehicle No.AS-01E-8671 was not requisitioned at the relevant time and therefore, the tribunal ought not to have fixed the responsibility on the appellant for satisfying 50% of the awarded amount. 6. Learned Govt. Advocate Ms. Rita Boro Bora appearing for the appellant in both the appeals contended that there was no evidence to show that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Government and therefore, responsibility to satisfy the award could not be saddled with the Government. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami and Mr. 6. Learned Govt. Advocate Ms. Rita Boro Bora appearing for the appellant in both the appeals contended that there was no evidence to show that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Government and therefore, responsibility to satisfy the award could not be saddled with the Government. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami and Mr. K.K. Bhatta appearing for the Insurance Company submits supporting the impugned award, that on the facts and circumstances of the case tribunal rightly presumed that the vehicle No.AS-01E 8671 was under requisition of the government. 7. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle act defines the owner in the following manner (30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement*, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement; 8. A plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the expression owner of motor vehicle may not necessarily mean a registered owner in all cases. When the vehicle is in actual possession of any person other than the registered owner by virtue of any agreement for lease or otherwise and the owner ceases to have control over the vehicle by virtue of such agreement of transfer, the person who remained in actual possession and control of the vehicle is considered to be the owner of the vehicle. It is also settled position of law, that when any vehicle is requisitioned by the Government or the State under the relevant law, the owner ceases to have no control over the vehicle because of requisition and in such situation also, the requisitioning authority or the State shall be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, for any risk of accident during such period when the actual registered owner of the vehicle ceased to have control over the vehicle by virtue of requisition by the government, the liability of the owner is shifted to the requisitioning authority. Since the owner is absolved from the liability during the period of requisition, the Insurance company necessarily cannot be saddled with the responsibility to indemnify the insured. 9. Since the owner is absolved from the liability during the period of requisition, the Insurance company necessarily cannot be saddled with the responsibility to indemnify the insured. 9. In the instant case, there is no dispute, that the registered owner of the vehicle No. AS-01E 8671 was Gautam Kr. Talukdar and it was also insured with the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd at the relevant time. Since there is no dispute that Gautam Kr. Talukdar was the registered owner of the vehicle No. AS-01E 8671 and Oriental Insurance Co was the insurer, ordinarily the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. 10. The case of the appellant is that the vehicle was never requisitioned by the State and therefore, no responsibility could be saddled with the State. The contention of the respondent Oriental Insurance company is that the vehicle was under requisition and therefore, the Insurance Company has no liability. The evidence on record shows that except casual statement that the vehicle was used by police personal at the relevant time, there is no other evidence on record to show, that the vehicle was requisitioned by the State at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal is found to have presumed on the basis of such casual statement that as the vehicle was used by police at the relevant time it was requisitioned by the government. Requisition is made under the particular act and there is certain procedure for requisition of a vehicle. When the owner and insurer sought to avoid the liability on the ground that the vehicle was requisitioned by the government or the state, some evidence has to be brought on record to show that it was indeed requisitioned. When admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle was one Gautam Kr. Talukdar and it was insured with Oriental Insurance Company, normally the insurer shall be liable. If the owner/insurer seeks to avoid their liability on the plea of requisition, burden lies with them to prove the factum of requisition. Evidently neither the owner nor the insurer had adduced any evidence to show that the vehicle was under requisition. In absence of such evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case, Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. 11. Evidently neither the owner nor the insurer had adduced any evidence to show that the vehicle was under requisition. In absence of such evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case, Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. 11. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability in the present case as the vehicle was admittedly insured at the relevant time and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. The respondent Oriental Insurance Company shall satisfy 50% of the award with interest as fixed by the tribunal within 2 (two) months by depositing the same with the Tribunal. The amount if any paid already shall be adjusted. 13. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed and disposed of. 14. Send back the LCR.