JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 5315 of 2016 1. Instant Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 28 days in preferring the present Appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the said prayer. Having heard the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds taken in paras-4 to 7 of the instant Interlocutory Application, the delay of 28 days in filing instant appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5315 of 2016 is hereby allowed. M.A. No. 338 of 2016 The Judgment and Award dated 29.02.2016, passed in Claim Case No. 38 of 2008 is under challenge in this Appeal. 2. The present Appeal arises out of claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- on account of death of Mukesh Bhuiyan in a motor vehicular accident. 3. The case of the Claimant lies in a narrow compass. On the fateful day of accident i.e. on 29.07.2008 at about 09:30 A.M., Mukesh Bhuiyan was travelling from Lawalong to Pratappur by Mini Bus bearing Reg. No. JH-02H-9413. When the bus reached Kunda Check Naka, due to negligent and reckless driving of bus by its driver, the bus skidded towards left side on the road. As a result of the said accident, the deceased Mukesh Bhuiyan sustained injuries on his head and person and immediately after the accident he was shifted to RIMS, Ranchi but unfortunately he died during treatment on 06.08.2008. In respect of the incident Kunda P.S. Case No. 14/2008 dated 15.08.2008 u/s. 279/304-A IPC was registered against the driver of Tata 407 bearing Reg. No. JH-02H-9413. After investigation police has submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the said vehicle namely, Arjun Kumar. It is the further case of the Respondents-Claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was 32 years old, he was self-employed and he was the only breadwinner of the family and because of the sudden death of the deceased Mukesh Bhuiyan, his wife, daughters suffered a lot and therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.4,12,000/-. As per the Respondents-Claimants, the Respondent-O.P. No. 1 is owner of the offending vehicle whereas, Appellant-O.P. No. 2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and Claimant No. 1 is the wife and Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of deceased Mukesh Bhuiyan. 4. Mr. As per the Respondents-Claimants, the Respondent-O.P. No. 1 is owner of the offending vehicle whereas, Appellant-O.P. No. 2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and Claimant No. 1 is the wife and Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of deceased Mukesh Bhuiyan. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Co. vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the respondents and also the order passed by the Tribunal and argues that since the Award has been passed in favour of the Claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Mukesh Bhuiyan (who was a gratuitous passenger) and as per settled principles of law and in view of catena of decision of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Insurer Co. is not liable to any single penny to the Claimant. Rather, it is the Owner of the vehicle, who is liable to pay the amount of claim. Learned counsel further argues that erroneously the same has not been considered by the Court below and the Insurance Co. has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Hon’ble Court and examining the question in the contest of Section 147 of the Act, it appears that since the victim was travelling the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable to suffer any liability arising out of the said accident but on the other hand, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its various judgments has held that applying the principle of pay and recover, the Insurance Co. is liable to pay the awarded amount subject to the rider that it can be recovered from the owner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 has held as under:- 15. This question also fell for consideration recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. Singh, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 has held as under:- 15. This question also fell for consideration recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as “gratuitous passenger” and hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the insurance company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of “pay and recover”. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the settled principles of law, I hereby direct the Insurance Co. to deposit the awarded amount i.e. Rs.4,18,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighteen Thousand only) including the amount under no fault liability with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of judgment of Claim Case No. 38 of 2008, if not deposited and the Insurance Co. is free to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Upon such deposit, the Court below is directed to disburse the amount to the Claimant/Respondents within a period of one week thereafter, after proper identification and subject to deposit of indemnity bond by the Claimants/Respondents, if any Needless to say that if the amount is deposited that will be subject to recovery from the owner. 7. Accordingly, the instant Appeal is hereby disposed of in the aforesaid terms and conditions.