JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. Heard Mr. [ENTITY], the learned Counsel for the petitioner insurance company and Mr. [ENTITY], the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite due service of notice upon him.
2. The legality of the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong in [CASE NUMBER] rejecting the application of the petitioner under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ('the Act' for short) to contest the claim petition on any grounds available to the owner of the offending vehicle, is called into question in this revision. The facts materials for disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The respondent-claimant filed a claim petition under [SECTION] of the Act for compensation on the account of the death of his son, who died in a vehicular accident. Both the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company were arrayed as the opposite parties in the case, who accordingly contested the case. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, it was specifically pleaded that in the event of any collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle, it reserved its right to obtain leave under [SECTION] of the Act to contest the case on the grounds contemplated therein. The case of the petitioner is that in the course of cross-examination of the claimant by the respondent No. 2, only three questions, that too, having no bearing at all in the case was put to him. According to the petitioner, by this act of omission, a reasonable apprehension was created in its mind that there was collusion between the respondent owner and the respondent-claimant. This prompted the petitioner to file the application under [SECTION] of the Act.
3. The learned Member of the Tribunal was not impressed with the apprehension of the petitioner and, after discussing the legal meaning of the term 'collusion' as found in various dictionaries, came to the conclusion that there was no unreal or fictitious pretence of contest between the claimant and owner of the vehicle and that by putting only three questions, it did not mean that there was collusion between them. He accordingly dismissed the application as already noted earlier. After going through the pleading of the parties and their evidence recorded heretofore, I am of the opinion that there was no occasion for the petitioner to seek leave under [SECTION] of the Act. More so, when the admitted facts on record are that the deceased was a pillion rider when he met the accident. A pillion rider in a vehicle is a gratuitous passenger and is, accordingly, not covered by statutory insurance policy. It is not the case of the claimant-respondent that the owner of the offending vehicle had taken an insurance policy other than the statutory insurance policy. The accident resulting in the death of the son of the claimant took place on 17.9.2004 when the [ACT], had already come into force. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. [ENTITY] , the top court observes as follows:
(27) Furthermore, [SECTION] speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas Sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.
4. On the basis of the para extracted above, this is what the top court says in [PRECEDENT] :
(21) In our view, although the observations made in [ENTITY]'s case , were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of appellant insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased [ENTITY] who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger.
(Emphasis added)
5. The aforesaid observations of the Apex Court completely take care of the apprehension of the petitioner. Once it is an admitted position of the parties, as in this case, that the deceased was a pillion rider when he met with the vehicular accident and, therefore, a gratuitous passenger, the petitioner insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation. In my judgment, the application of the petitioner under [SECTION] of the Act, is, ipso facto, rendered redundant.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this revision does not really survive for consideration and is, accordingly, disposed of. The learned Member of the Tribunal shall now conclude the trial of the case from the stage at which he passed the impugned order in accordance with law and without any loss of time. Transmit the LC record forthwith.