- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.674 OF 2009 United India Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered Head Office at United India House, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600 014. .... Appellant - Versus - 1. Smt. Sunanda Satish Narvekar, Age: 50 years 2. Sanket Satish Narvekar 3. Sankalpa Satish Narvekar Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being minors through their mother and next friend/guardian Smt. Sunanda S. Narvekar, all residing at Bliss CHS Ltd., Godwari Building, "B" Wing, Room No.20, Sector-3, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. 4. Narendra Jairam Ghodekar, residing at Kalash Udyan, Rajhans No.3, Room No.7, Sector 11, Kopurkhairane, Navi Mumbai. .... Respondents Shri V.Y. Sanglikar for the Appellant. Shri M.B. Kotak for Respondent Nos.1 - 2 - to 3. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.): Not on Board. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. The only question raised in this appeal is that the Tribunal could not have awarded any compensation as, admittedly, the person who died in the accident was a pillion rider of a scooter which was insured. Counsel for the appellant submits that this controversy has been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sudhakaran K.V. and others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 428. The Supreme Court has equated a pillion rider of a scooter with a traveller on - 3 - a goods carriage as a gratuitous passenger. In para 17, the Supreme Court has observed thus: "17. This Court in a catena of decisions has categorically held that a gratuitous passenger in a goods carried would not be covered by a contract of insurance entered into by and between the insurer and the owner of the vehicle in terms of Section 147 of the Act." The Supreme Court relied on the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223. Equating a pillion rider on a scooter with a passenger on a goods carriage, the Supreme Court in para 25 observed thus: "25. The law which emerges from the said decisions, is: (i) the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion-rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk; (ii) the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion- rider; (iii) the pillion-rider in a two-wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and - 4 - not on the part of the driver of another vehicle." 3. Since the Supreme Court has categorically held that a pillion rider on a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle and as there is a finding by the Tribunal that the accident had occurred because of negligence of the person who was driving the scooter, as such, the judgment of the Supreme Court applies to the case in hand. Though the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that it was unimaginable that a pillion rider on a scooter who usually is a child or a spouse of a scooterist would be equated with a gratuitous passenger on a goods vehicle, but as this controversy is already decided by the Supreme Court, we will not be able to entertain such a submission. Applying - 5 - the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhakaran K.V. (supra), we allow this appeal and set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S.A. BOBDE, J.)