:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2006 Mr. Cruz Mascarenhas S/o Sebastian Mascarenhas r/o H.No.185, Gaurawado, Calangute, Bardez Goa. …. Appellant V e r s u s 1. Sadanand Uttam Malik r/o Gaonkarwada Sanquelim Goa. 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, Town Centre, Bicholim Goa. 3. Mr. Anil alias Deelip Madan Kambli, r/o Parra Zakaniwado, H.No.41/A, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. 4. Mr. Babi Sitaram Kotkar, 55 years of age, businessman, 5. Mrs. Laxawati Babi Kotkar, 48 years of age, housewife, both residents of Kotkarwada, Pernem Goa. 6. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Damodar Chambers, Panaji Goa. … Respondents Shri J. Godinho, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.R.S. Netravalkar, Advocate for respondent no.6. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE : 29 th NOVEMBER, 2011 :2: ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri A.R.S. Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, dated 10/09/2004 passed in Claim Petition No.76/2000 whereby the Claim Petition filed by the respondents no.4 & 5 was partly allowed and the appellant and respondent no.3 as also respondent no.6 herein were ordered to pay a total compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till payment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/respondent no.4 in the Claim Petition No.76/2000 has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded is to be paid by the insurance company i.e. respondent no.6 and the :3: amount be recovered from the respondent nos.3 and 4 i.e. the appellant herein. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the pillion rider who expired is a third party and as such according to him the insurance company – respondent no.6 is liable to pay the compensation. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the pillion rider was not covered by the insurance policy and as such directed the amount to be paid by the insurance company and recover from the appellant herein also. The learned Counsel as such submited that the impugned judgment to the extent that permits the respondent no.6 to recover the amount from the appellant be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand Shri Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 has disputed the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the pillion rider is not a third party and as the insurance policy is an Act policy, the question of the insurance company paying the amount does not arise at all. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the Apex Court has settled the position that the pillion rider or gratuitous passenger is not a third party, the :4: insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to such claimant. The learned Counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006 ACJ 1441 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Tilak Singh and others, and a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 29.4.2011 in First Appeal No. 136 of 2011 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Manohar Mahadeo Kaphale & Anr. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned judgment, the contention of Shri Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant to the effect that the pillion rider is a third party cannot be accepted. This aspect is no longer res-integra as the Apex Court in the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ( Supra ) has categorically held that the gratuitous passenger as well as the pillion rider is not a third party. There is no dispute that the insurance policy was an Act policy and further no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle. On the face of such admitted fact, I find that the learned Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the compensation which is :5: payable by the insurance company to the claimants can be recovered from the appellant as well. The learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and fixed the compensation and directed that the amount is to be paid by the insurance company and recovered from the appellant and respondent no. 3 herein. Considering the said aspect, I find no merit in the above appeal and as such the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J at*