HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.881 OF 2001 Dated: 12.03.2010 BETWEEN: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant And B.Vijay Kumar and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.881 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 21.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Medak District at Sanga Reddy in O.P.No.667 of 1995. 2. The United India Insurance Company Limited - the second respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant herein. The motor vehicle accident in which the second respondent-claimant received injuries took place on 13.08.1995 while the second respondent was traveling as pillion rider on the scooter bearing No.AHB 5413 which was driven by one K.Shivaraj. Admittedly, the first respondent is the owner of the said scooter and it was insured with the appellant-insurance company at relevant time. Against the claim of Rs.75,000/- made by the second respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation holding that the first respondent-owner of the vehicle as well as the appellant- insurance company are liable to pay compensation. 3. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the finding of the Tribunal holding that the appellant-insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents despite several opportunities were afforded. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that since the second respondent –claimant was a pillion rider on the scooter and the accident took place as a result of skidding of the scooter, his risk is not covered under the policy which is an Act policy and no premium was paid by the insured to cover such a risk and therefore, the learned tribunal erred in holding that the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 6. Perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal reveals that it was of the view that in the amended Motor Vehicles Act any person who is the victim of the motor vehicle accident even if he is a gratuitous passenger or even a pillion rider such a risk is covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, in the opinion of the learned Tribunal any person under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act includes the gratuitous passenger or even pillion rider. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD, SHIMLA v TILAK SINGH AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani’s case (supra) 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 the appellant-insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh 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 gratuitous passengers.” Therefore, the risk of the pillion rider is equated to that of the gratuitous passenger and it is now well settled that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by a pillion rider or the death of any person traveling as such unless the insured specifically paid premium to cover such a risk. In the instant case. Ex.B.1-policy does not indicate that any premium is paid to cover the risk of a pillion rider. Thus, the Tribunal had fallen into error in fastening the liability on the appellant insurance company under the misconception of law that the expression “the risk of any person” used under Section 147 of the Act includes the risk of even gratuitous passenger or pillion rider. The finding of the tribunal holding that the appellant- insurance is liable to pay compensation is therefore, set aside in this appeal and it is held that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the second respondent-injured claimant. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 12.03.2010 kvrm [1] 2006(1) Decisions Today (SC)479