FAO No. 538 of 1988 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 538 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.4.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ... Appellant vs Raj Kumari and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 28.1.1988 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby the insurance company was held liable to satisfy the award. Briefly the facts are that on 3.12.1986 at about 9.30/10.00 p.m., Sanjiv Kumar was driving the scooter No. DBZ-4739 and Ramesh was sitting on the pillion seat. The scooter struck against the person going on the road and fell on the road. Ramesh received multiple injuries and was removed to Hospital at Delhi, where he died. The petition filed by the claimant was allowed by the Tribunal. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. The only ground on which the award of the Tribunal is sought to be challenged is that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation on account of claim made by a pillion rider on a two wheeler. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly did not dispute the fact that the issue regarding claim of death or bodily injury to a pillion rider has been considered by Delhi High Court in MAC. APP. No. 176 of 2009- Yashpal Luthra and another vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, decided on 9.12.2009 and this court in FAO No. 1595 of 2008 – Davinder Singh vs Mandeep Singh and others, decided on 25.3.2010, FAO No. 538 of 1988 -2- wherein it has been opined that since 2.6.1986, in terms of instructions issued by TAC to all the insurance companies, the insurance companies were required to cover the pillion rider on a scooter/motorcycle under a comprehensive policy-Package Policy and the same continues till date. The accident in the present case occurred on 3.12.1986 i.e. after the aforesaid date. The record of the court below in the present case was burnt. The aforesaid policy is not on record. However, considering the fact that accident in the present case occurred on 3.12.1986 and the amount of compensation awarded is also merely Rs. 37,200/- on account of death of Ramesh, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 7.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge