JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited (original opponent No. 3) has preferred the present First Appeals, challenging the judgments and awards dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and 4th Additional District Judge, Camp at Chhotaudepur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. Nos. 2472, 2473, 2474, and 2476 of 1997 (herein after referred to as “the claim petitions”), respectively, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petitions. For ready perusal, the order passed in M.A.C.P. No. 2472 of 1997 is reproduced herein below: “I. The above referred claim petition is hereby partly allowed. The claimant is entitled to recover Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Eighty Fourt Thousand Only) (sic.) with the proportionate cost and with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the claim petitions till realization from the opponents, who are liable to pay the same. II. The opponents are hereby directed to deposit awarded amount within 30 days of the order. III. Deficit court fees stamp, if any, be recovered from the awarded amount and interim amount if paid be adjusted. IV. On depositing the amount in the Registry of this Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. V. Out of the awarded amount, 70% amount be invested as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for initial period five years. The remaining 30% amount be paid to the applicants by account payee cheque/s forthwith. VI. The applicant will not be entitled to get any loan, advance or withdrawal or can create any encumbrance on the aforesaid fixed deposit without prior permission of this Tribunal. However, periodical interest accrued from time to time on the said fixed deposit be paid in cash to applicants. VII. VI. The applicant will not be entitled to get any loan, advance or withdrawal or can create any encumbrance on the aforesaid fixed deposit without prior permission of this Tribunal. However, periodical interest accrued from time to time on the said fixed deposit be paid in cash to applicants. VII. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti P. Lodhani v/s The Oriental insurance company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 , total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company / owner is / are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of ‘Tax Deducted at Source’ as provided u/s 194(3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs. 50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount (as directed in para No.II) without producing the certificate from the concerned Income Tax Authority. VIII. Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition.” 1.1 In other three claim petitions, the learned Tribunal is pleased to award compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.41,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. 2. Since the facts of the incident are not in dispute, the Court deems it proper not to narrate the same in detail. Least is to state that in an accident which occurred on 09.09.1997, wife namely Veenaben and Son namely Sureshbhai of the original claimant – Bhalubhai Chimanbhai Rathva sustained severe injuries and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries, whereas, others sustained injuries. 3. Heard Mr. R. G. Dwivedi, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company. Though served, none has put in appearance for the respondents. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company has submitted that the impugned judgments and awards passed by the learned Tribunal are illegal, perverse, unjust and unreasonable, because the same are contrary to the settled principles and proposition of law, and are diametrical to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has miserably erred in drawing highly unjustified and unwarranted inferences from the evidence on record. There is a material irregularity and illegality committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned judgments and awards. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has miserably erred in drawing highly unjustified and unwarranted inferences from the evidence on record. There is a material irregularity and illegality committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned judgments and awards. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in allowing the claim petitions and awarding the aforesaid amount towards compensation against the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company even though the vehicle in question was insured as private car and the risk of gratuitous passenger was not covered under the policy. Hence, the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company is not liable to pay any amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal and the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company is required to be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 4.1 The learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the vehicle in question was not allowed to use for hire or reward, while from the FIR and cross-examination of the original claimant, it is proved that, at the relevant time, the vehicle was being plied on hire and reward, and the deceased/injured were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, and the same has been mentioned by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment and award, wherein it is observed that third party risk of the gratuitous passenger was not covered under the scope of the policy, and hence the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company is required to be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation and the learned Tribunal ought to have held accordingly, but is not the case. 4.2 The learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the driver and the owner of the vehicle in question have not come forward before the Tribunal and have not filed any reply and also not produced the required documents i.e. the copy of the R.C. Book of the vehicle and the Driving Licence of the respondent No. 2 - original opponent No. 2 – Rajubhai Roopsinghbhai Tadvi, who was driving the offending vehicle. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has also not given any reasoning as to on what basis and heads, the amount of compensation has been awarded against the appellant. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has also not given any reasoning as to on what basis and heads, the amount of compensation has been awarded against the appellant. 4.3 The learned advocate for the appellant has further submitted that even otherwise, the award is on the higher side inasmuch as the accident had occurred in the year 1997. 4.4 Thus, making above submissions, it is urged that the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the original claimants and accordingly, it is requested that the present appeals may be allowed in the interest of justice and the appellant – insurance company may be exonerated from paying the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant and has also perused the impugned judgments and awards passed by the learned Tribunal as also gone through documents available on record. 5.1 The moot question which is raised by the learned advocate for the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company in these appeals is that the vehicle in question was insured as a private car and the risk of gratuitous passengers was not covered under the policy. Moreover, the Jeep car bearing Registration No. GJ-6-AA-2791 was registered and insured as a private car and as per clause 3 of the ‘Limitation To Use’ which is printed on the face of the policy, the vehicle in question was not allowed to use it for Hire or Reward, which is also clear from the FIR and the cross examination of the original claimant. Further, as contended, the driver and the owner of the vehicle in question did not appear before the Tribunal and consequently, no required documents i.e. the RC Book of the vehicle and the Driving Licence of respondent No. 2 - original opponent No. 1 – Rajubhai Roopsinghbhai Tadvi, who was driving the offending vehicle, have been produced on record. The learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has, therefore, urged that the learned Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company ought to have been exonerated from the liability to pay the awarded amount. The learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has, therefore, urged that the learned Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant - original opponent No. 3 – insurance company ought to have been exonerated from the liability to pay the awarded amount. 5.2 From the record, the undisputed facts which emerge are that: i) there is no dispute as regards the validity of insurance policy; ii) the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal; iii) Driving Licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is not produced on record and there is nothing on record to show its invalidity; iv) original claimant/complainant – Bhalubhai Chimanbhai Rathva, respondent No. 1 in First Appeal Nos. 783 and 784 of 2014 in his evidence (cross-examination) at Exh. 20 in M.A.C.P. No. 2472 of 1997 has admitted that on the date of incident he, along with his (deceased) wife, (deceased) Son and others, was going to Bodeli for labour work and when they reached on the road, one Jeep was coming to which, they stopped by waving hand and then, they boarded the Jeep. In the Jeep, two persons were already sitting. He has further admitted that the driver and the owner of the Jeep were not their relatives. Thus, from the statement of the aforesaid witness, it is clear that they had boarded the Jeep as gratuitous passengers. v) admittedly, the Jeep was registered as private car. vi) indisputably, the gratuitous passengers are not covered under the policy conditions. 5.3 From the above, more particularly, the deposition of the above-referred claimant, it can be culled out that the claimant / victim / injured were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers. Furthermore, indisputably, the Jeep was registered as a private vehicle. vi) indisputably, the gratuitous passengers are not covered under the policy conditions. 5.3 From the above, more particularly, the deposition of the above-referred claimant, it can be culled out that the claimant / victim / injured were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers. Furthermore, indisputably, the Jeep was registered as a private vehicle. Considering the said facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that they were travelling as occupant in the said Jeep as it is abundantly clear from the material on record that they were travelling as gratuitous passengers and as per the settled law, in the circumstance, the appellant – insurance company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, more particularly, when the gratuitous passengers are not covered under the insurance policy. 5.4 At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and Others v. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Others, MANU/SC/0194/2017, wherein, while allowing the appeal, the Court has held as under: “(i) The question remained no more res integra. It was subject matter of several decisions of the present Court rendered by three Judge Bench and two Judge Bench in past. 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, the present Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 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". [16] (ii) Merely because the compensation had not yet been paid to the Claimants though the case was quite old, it could not be a ground to deny the Claimants the relief claimed. The present Court already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed due to pendency of the reference to a larger Bench. The present Court already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed due to pendency of the reference to a larger Bench. [20] (iii) The direction was issued to Insurance Company, they being the Insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver, to first pay the awarded sum to the Appellants and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle. [22]” 5.5 In a latest decision of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari and Others v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Others, MANU/SC/1068/2021, the Court confirmed the pay and recover order passed by the Tribunal. 5.6 The Coordinate Bench in a recent decision in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vipul R. Brahmbhatt, MANU/GJ/ 1405/2021, also, while holding the person travelling as gratuitous passenger, has exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation. However, principal of pay and recover was also applied in the same. 5.7 In aforesaid view of the matter, the appeals on hand merit favourable consideration and the appellant – insurance is required to be exonerated from paying the compensation to the claimants. Nonetheless, the Court deems it proper to order pay and recover and accordingly, to that extent, the impugned judgments and awards are required to be modified. 6. In the result, these appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed in part. The impugned judgments and awards dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and 4th Additional District Judge, Camp at Chhotaudepur in M.A.C.P. Nos. 2472, 2473, 2474 and 2476 of 1997 are hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and the appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd. is exonerated from the liability of making payment of compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant – insurance company is directed to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the claimants at first instance and thereafter, it is open for the insurance company to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle in question.