IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.182 of 2004 DIVISIONAL MANAGER Versus RAJENDRA SINGH @ MOTI SINGH ----------- 20 12.05.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents under Order 41 rule 11 C.P.C. 2. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd against the judgment dated 17.03.2004 and the award dated 22.03.2004 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 44 of 2002 whereby the learned tribunal directed the appellant- insurance company to pay compensation of Rs 1,72,000/- with interest @ 9 per cent per annum to the applicants. 3. The facts in short is that the claimants claim Rs 4,30,000/- as compensation because of death of Rakesh Ranjan on account of motor accident. It is stated that Mukesh Singh was driving motorcycle and the deceased Rakesh Ranjan was sitting on the back seat of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-9B/1618. Because of rash and negligent driving by Mukesh Kumar Singh, the motorcycle dashed with a rickshaw as a result of which the rickshaw and the motorcycle turned turtle. Rakesh Ranjan, the pillion rider died at the spot. At the time of accident, the 2 motorcycle was insured with the insurance company-the appellant. The deceased was aged about 22 years. 4. The owner who was O.P. No. 1 neither appeared nor filed any W.S. in the court below. 5. The appellant insurance company who was O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed contesting written statement. Besides taking various legal pleas, the insurance company also contended that the company is not liable to pay the compensation. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned tribunal held that motorcycle in question was insured with the appellant, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 7..The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation regarding the deceased who was a pillion rider because the policy was statutory policy and did not cover the risk of death to a gratuitous passenger. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2009(1) BLJ Supreme Court page 103 (The General Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd vs. N. Laxmi & Ors.) 8. It appears that in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred-to-above, also the owner did not appear. In that case also, the deceased was a pillion rider. 3 9. In the present case, admittedly, the insurance is a statutory policy. And therefore, it does not cover a pillion rider and gratuitous passengers. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to the decision of the earlier decision reported in 2003(2) SCC 223 (New India Assurance Company Ltd vs. Asha Rani & Ors.) & 2006 (4) SCC 404 (United India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Tilak Singh) has held that the insurance company owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the pillion rider as the insurance company was a statutory policy. 11. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the deceased was a pillion rider and the insurance company issued the policy covering 3rd party risk only. At best, the pillion rider could be said to be a gratuitous passenger and as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court although, the observations made in Asha Rani’s case where in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. 12. In view of the above settled principles of law, laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I upheld the contention of the appellant-insurance company that it has got no liability towards the death of Rakesh Ranjan who was a pillion rider only, as the insurance policy in this case also is a statutory 4 policy and hence the said policy did not cover the risk of death of a pillion rider. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order directing the appellant to pay compensation is unsustainable in the eye of law. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order directing the appellant to pay the compensation is set aside. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this court be returned to the appellant. AKV/ (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)