THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A (SR) No.5700 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellants filed M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karimnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal), claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Nallagoni Padma, wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellant Nos.2 and 3, in an accident that occurred on 10.09.2006 at Suglampally Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. It was pleaded that Nallagoni Padma attended a function at Karimnagar and when she was returning to Rompikunta Village as a pillion rider on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 S 6876, owned by respondent No.2, insured with respondent No.3 and driven by respondent No.1, she fell down on account of application of sudden brake. When she was being shifted to Shivaramakrishna Hospital, Karimnagar, she died on the way at 8.30 p.m. It was further pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and contributing the same to the family. She was said to be aged 28 years. The O.P. was opposed by respondent No.3 alone. A counter-affidavit was filed denying the contents of the O.P. It was also alleged that though there exists an insurance coverage for the vehicle, no additional premium was paid covering the liability towards a pillion rider. Through its order, dated 19.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,81,000/- as compensation and apportioned the same among the parties. However, it excluded respondent No.3 from the liability. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. There is no appearance for respondent Nos.1 and 2 before this Court also. Before the Tribunal, appellant No.1 deposed as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6, which are mostly in relation to the registration of a case arising out of the accident. On behalf of respondent No.3, R.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.B1, insurance policy. The principal grievance of the appellants is about the exclusion of the liability on the part of respondent No.3. It is no doubt, true that no additional premium was paid under Ex.B1, covering the liability towards the injuries or death of a pillion rider. Obviously, taking the same into account, the Tribunal did not hold respondent No.3 liable, to pay the compensation. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the Insurance Regulatory Authority has issued certain clarifications to the Insurance Companies. It is to the effect that even where no separate premium is paid covering the liability towards pillion riders, the liability of the insurance company cannot be avoided. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 has placed before this Court a letter, dated 24.05.2010, addressed to him by respondent No.3 referring to the said clarification. In that view of the matter, respondent No.3 is also liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The letter shall be treated as part of the record in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is allowed to the extent of holding respondent No.3 also liable to pay the compensation. The award is upheld in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.08.2010. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl