^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR SinaieBench : Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. AppeJiant Respondents Miscetlaneous Appeal (ONo.1180/2007 The Oriental insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office No.2, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (<CG) (Insurer of Motor Cycle No.C.G.- 04/C.D./9214) Versus 1. Premlal, S/o Jadunath Mahitang, aged about 43 years. 2. Punautin Bai, W/o Premlal Mahilang, Aged about 40 years. Respondents No.1 &2 Resident of At Post Kurra, Thana Dharsinva,- Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Asha Bai, Wd/o Rajiv Banjare, Resident of At Post Kurra, Thana Dharsinva, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Motor Cyde NO.C.G.04/C.D./9214) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Present : Shri Sudhjr Agrawai, counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of respondents, though ser/ed. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07th March, 2008) Heard finaliy. (2) The appellant/insurance company is aggrieved by an award dated 30-04-2007 passed by the Vlilth AdditionaJ h/lotor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth "the MACT") in Claim Case No.34/2007 whereby in a case of accidental death of pillion rider travelling on motorcycle bearing Registration No.C.G.-04/C.D./9214 (hencefQrth "the motorcycte"), the MACT has fastened liability on the insurer to pay compensation ofRs.2,50,000/-. ^? 2-— Jj %*&., (3) Admittedly, in this appeai on 15-01-2006 at about 02.30 P.M.. Rajeev Banjare was driving the motorcycle. The deceased-Neelkanth @ Dinesh was the piilion rider. Due to bursting of tyre, Rajeev Banjare tost control and at that very moment, an unknown motorcycie dashed against the motorcycie driven by Rajeev Banjare, resulting in death of Rajeev Banjare as also the piilion rider Neelkanth @ Dinesh. (4) The defence of the insurer was that it was not liable to pay compensation because risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the policy of insurance issued by it. Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Administrative Qfficer of the insurance company was examsned before the MACT to substantiate the defence taken by the insurer. The MACT held<that even if the defence taken by the jnsurance company was to be accepted, the deceased-piilion rider was a third pariy. On these reasonfng, it fastened iiabiiity on the insurance company to pay compensation. (5) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has piaced heavy reiiance on United Sndia Insurance Co.Ltd., Shimla vs. Tllak Singh and Others, 2006(2)T.A.C.312 (S.C.) and Narrottanr? Sinha and Another vs, Santoshi Yadav and Others, decision rendered by Dlvision Bench of this Court in M.A.(c) No.864/2007 on 31-07-2007. (6) The owner as aiso the claimant did not contest the appeal and remained ex-parte before this Court. (7) In a simitar situation, the Apex Court has, in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and Others (Supra) heJd that the piilion rider on the Scooter fei! into the category of gratuitous passenger and the jnsurer was not under any statutory liability to cover the '^ ^s&^.. /^ ^ 1 %s^^ 1 y s v%^^/ "ct^'^ ^;> risk of gratuitous passenger being carried on the Scooter. It was held that the insurer is not iiable to pay compensation, in the above situation. Relying upon the above judgment of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view in Narrottam Sinha and Another vs. Santoshi Yadav and Others (Supra) thatthe deceased-pillion rider being a gratuitous passenger, the insurer was not under any statutory liabiiity to cover the risk of pillion rider and therefore not liable to pay compensation. (8) For covering risk of pillion rider, endorsement of iMT 70 pertaining to accident of pJllion rider is required in the insurance policy, which may be obtained by payment of additionai premium* insurance Poiice Ex.D-1 did ' not contain endorsement of IMT 70. The insurer proved the policy of insurance Ex.D.1 by examining its Administrative Officer who categoricaily stated that premium for covering the risk of pillion rider was not paid by the insured. (9) Consequently, the appea! is a!lo\yed. The impugned award in so far as it relates to fastening iiability on the insurer to pay compensation is set aslde. The compensation awarded by the MACT shail be recovered by the claimantsfrom the owner ofthe motorcvcle. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumane