JUDGMENT : (Through Video Conferencing) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company. It is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Hosur in M.C.O.P.No.411 of 2017. 2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,91,000/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs to the first to fourth respondents. 3. The impugned Judgment and Decree is sought to be assailed by the appellant insurance company in this appeal on the ground that the deceased travelled as a “gratuitous passenger” in the insured vehicle bearing registration No.KA-02-C-4935. 4. It is submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra and is covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aandi and others, (2018) 2 TN MAC 751 and few other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company deserves to be allowed. 5. Defending the impugned order Judgment and Decree, learned counsel for the first to fourth respondents / claimants submitted that the Supreme Court has taken note of the hardship caused and is allowed the claim petition is in the following cases:- “i. Shivraj Vs. Rajendra and another, (2018) 10 SCC 432 . ii. Shivawwa and another Vs. Branch Manager, National India Insurance Company Limited and other, (2018) 5 SCC 762 . iii. Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 9 SCC 650 and iv. Anu Bhanvara etc. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) SCC Online SC 1006.” 6. It is submitted that in all these cases despite the deceased had travelled in goods carriage vehicle, pay and recovery is ordered. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the first to fourth respondents. I have perused the impugned Judgment and Decree and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of this Court. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aandi and others, (2018) 2 TN MAC 751 has distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivraj Vs. I have perused the impugned Judgment and Decree and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of this Court. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aandi and others, (2018) 2 TN MAC 751 has distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivraj Vs. Rajendra and another, (2018) 10 SCC 432 and has held that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 will not apply to the cases of gratuitous passengers. 9. Incidentally, I have also allowed the appeal in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohamudha Fazila & others, 2020 SCC Online Mad 9011 : (2020) 2 TNMAC 777 filed by Insurance Company and in The National Insurance Company Limited Vs. E.A. Palanisamy (Died) and Others in C.M.A.No.1958 of 2010. 10. Today, I have also incidentally pronounced a detailed order in C.M.A.No.2613 of 2019 in an appeal filed by M/s.Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Thangaponnu & 2 others, wherein, I have exhaustively dealt with the law on the subject based on the interpretations placed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satpal Singh and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 237 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and others, (2003) 2 SCC 233 and in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 . I have also referred to decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Nagammal and two others, 2009 (1) CTC 1 . 11. In Asha Rani case, Baljit Kaur case and that of the Full Bench of this Court in Nagammal case, it has been held that there is no scope for ordering pay and recovery after 1994 amendment where there is there is no statutory liability to cover the risk. 12. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case referred to supra also does not apply in the of a death or injury to an unauthorised person travelling as a gratuitous passengers in a goods carriage. 13. Thus, what emerges from the above discussion is that an order, for pay and recovery can be made only where there is a breach of conditions of contract of Insurance by insured. 13. Thus, what emerges from the above discussion is that an order, for pay and recovery can be made only where there is a breach of conditions of contract of Insurance by insured. Pay and recover cannot be ordered in the case where no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company in the light of the interpretation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and others, (2003) 2 SCC 223 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 . 14. These decisions came to be followed by the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court and in two cases which were passed by me earlier. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed. 15. While, this Court is bound by the reasons adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Rani case, Baljit Kaur case and that of the Full Bench of this Court in Nagammal case and the latest decision of Division Bench of this Court Bharti Axa Insurance Vs. Anandi case, a reference to few passages from of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2010) 2 SCC 607 is invited to the attention of the law makers. 16. In the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has lamented and observed as follows:- 38. India has the dubious distinction of being one of the countries with the highest number of road accidents and the longest response time in securing first aid and medical treatment. There is therefore an urgent need for laying down and enforcing road safety measures and establishment of large number of trauma centres and first-aid centres. It is also necessary to consider the establishment of a Road Safety Bureau to lay down road safety standards and norms, enforce road safety measures, establish and run trauma centres, establish first-aid centres in petrol stations, and carry out research/data collection for accident prevention. 39. Several countries have comprehensive enactments dealing exclusively with accidents. In place of the provisions relating to the Accident Tribunals and award of compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and other statutes dealing with accidents and compensation, enacting a comprehensive and unified statute dealing with accidents may be considered. Securing the compensation to the victims of accidents involving uninsured vehicles 41. In place of the provisions relating to the Accident Tribunals and award of compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and other statutes dealing with accidents and compensation, enacting a comprehensive and unified statute dealing with accidents may be considered. Securing the compensation to the victims of accidents involving uninsured vehicles 41. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf. 17. In fact, earlier an Expert Committee on Review of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was constituted on 14.09.2009 vide letter bearing Reference No.RT-11-12/2009MVL by the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS. 18. The Committee had recommended that Chapter X (Liability without fault in certain cases), Chapter XI (Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks) & Chapter XII (Claims Tribunal) be taken out of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the provisions relating to vehicle insurance in the MVA be restricted. 19. It also recommended that other matters relating to insurance of Motor Vehicles, payment of compensation to the accident victims and the procedure in this regard etc. should be incorporated into a separate Act more appropriately drawn up by the Ministry of Finance. Matters to be dealt with by the Motor Vehicle Act were recommenced to be : (i) Third Party Insurance for a motor vehicle shall be mandatory. “Third party should be adequately defined. (ii) The Certificate of Insurance should be co-terminus with the validity of Certificate of Registration of the motor vehicle. (iii) The motor vehicle owner/driver shall produce the Certificate of Insurance for inspection to the police officer/enforcement authorities on demand. (iv) Cash less medical treatment to the road accident victims during first 72 hours will be provided by the Insurance Companies.” 20. (iii) The motor vehicle owner/driver shall produce the Certificate of Insurance for inspection to the police officer/enforcement authorities on demand. (iv) Cash less medical treatment to the road accident victims during first 72 hours will be provided by the Insurance Companies.” 20. It also recommended a new definition for the expression “third party” to means any person other than the insured and the insurer to include the Government, the driver of the vehicle and the passengers travelling in it. 21. It further recommended as follows: (a) Definition of authorised Insurer be modified to include all private player also, duly licensed by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority. Section 145(a). (b) The amount of compensation under “hit & run” cases and under the Structured compensation Formula should be enhanced. Further, there should be a provision to increase the amount of compensation based on the rising cost of living. Section 161(3)(a), Section 163A. (c) Provision should be made for an insurance policy to become void on the grounds of non-disclosure or misrepresentation or non-receipt of premium. Section 149(1). (d) The insurer may be relieved from the liability in case the vehicle is driven by a person not having an effective driving licence or in case of non-receipt of premium. Section 149(2). (e) The insurer may be allowed to contest the claim on any relevant ground including the quantum. New Provision. (f) There should be a cap on the liability of insurers to pay compensation under the Structured Compensation Formula on “no fault principles”, of Rs.10 lakhs and on fault principle of Rs.20 lakhs. There should be a similar cap on the compensation to be awarded by the MACTs. Claims beyond this amount should be adjudicated by Civil Courts. New provision. (g) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) or Civil Court small endeavour to dispose of a case within two years from the date of its filing, not to ordinarily grant adjournment unless sufficient cause and reasons of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the MACT or civil Court, New provision. (h) There should be a time limit, say 3 years for filing application from the occurrence of accident subject to general principles provided in the Limitations Act, 1963. New provision. (i) To enable the insurer to make an endeavour to settle the claims out of Court/Tribunal directly with the claimant by mutual consent. New provision. (h) There should be a time limit, say 3 years for filing application from the occurrence of accident subject to general principles provided in the Limitations Act, 1963. New provision. (i) To enable the insurer to make an endeavour to settle the claims out of Court/Tribunal directly with the claimant by mutual consent. New provision. (j) The rate of interest on the amount of compensation be linked to 200 basis points above the bank rate as notified by the Reserve Bank of India to introduce certainty and uniformity regarding the interest on amount payable as compensation. New provision. (k) Provision for interim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in case of death or permanent total disablement and Rs.50,000/- in case of permanent partial disablement, resulting from loss of a limb or sight of either eye or grievous hurt leading to such disablement, to the victim within three months from the date of filing of application. New provision. (l) The Act may suitably provide for the adoption of the procedure for settlement of accident cases by MACT, as laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the respective MACT Rules of the States. New provision. 22. Therefore, there is an urgent need for recasting the motor accident law. Though, in 2019 few amendments were made, most of the recommendations and the lamentations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have gone unnoticed. The current regime has served the purpose though not as was expected. It is time, the law is completely relooked and modernized to take care of the growing needs of the society. 23. As no liability can be fixed on the appellant Insurance Company as per the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is however inclined to order payment of Rs.50,000/- only as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 together within interest to mitigate the hardship of the 1stclaimant. 24. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.9,91,000/- is reduced to Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 25. 24. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.9,91,000/- is reduced to Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 25. Therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less any amount already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 26. On such deposit being made by the appellant Insurance Company, the 1st respondent alone is permitted to withdraw the same directly from the Tribunal together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. 27. Since only a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded, other legal representatives i.e. 2nd to 4th respondents are not entitled to withdraw the compensation. 28. The appellant- Insurance Company is however permitted to withdraw any amount deposited in excess of Rs.50,000/-, together with interest accrued thereon, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. 29. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.