The instructions of the Tariff Advisory Committee and the clause in the policy schedule widened the insurer's liability to cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger, making the insurer legally justified in its liability.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurer, united India insurance company limited, is filed against the judgment and award dated 8 august, 1990 of the m. a. c. t. ii, Bangalore rural district, made in m. v. c. No. 342 of 1987 disposed of on its file holding the appellant also liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 46,000/- to respondent 1-claimant jointly and severally with respondent 2, owner of the offending car bearing registration No. Kln 1176.

( 2 ) THE arguments of learned counsel on both sides are heard.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') filed his petition under Section 110-a of the motor vehicle Act, 1939 ('the act' for short) before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident occurred on 25-2-1987 on mysore- Bangalore road due to negligent driving of the said car bearing registration No. Kln 1176 by its driver, in which car he was travelling as a passenger. Appellant was made respondent 1 in the petition as insurer of the said car. Respondent 2 herein was made respondent 2 in the petition and the driver of the said car was impleaded as respondent 3 therein. Appellant and respondent 2 appeared before the tribunal in the said m. v. c. No. 342 of 1987 through their learned counsels but appellant alone contested the petition claim by filing its written statement.

( 4 ) THOUGH the alleged insurance of the car with appellant was denied by it in its written statement, the same was admitted by it at subsequent stage of the proceeding before the tribunal by production of its relevant insurance policy at exhibit r-l in evidence on record. The petition against respondent 3, driver, was not pressed before the tribunal by the claimant and, therefore, the petition stood dismissed as against the driver.

( 5 ) ON merits the claimant's petition came to be allowed partly by the tribunal granting him the said compensation of Rs. 46,000/- as payable jointly and severally by appellant and respondent 2 herein, together with interest at 9% per annum under its impugned judgment and award.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the appellant, insurer, has challenged the finding of the tribunal holding the appellant also liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant since he was admittedly travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the said car of respondent 2 and that exhibit r-1 being the act policy it does not cover such a passenger's risk.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant Sri o. Mahesh, reiterating the said ground urged in the appeal, argued against the impugned award of the tribunal fastening the liability on appellant to pay the said compensation to claimant. He placed reliance on a decision of supreme court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and others v M/s. Ranjlt ginning and pressing company private limited and another.

( 8 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, messrs b. a. ramakrishna and ashok haranahalli, placing reliance on a decision of Punjab and haryana court in Kailash Kumari and others v Bhola and others , canvassed their arguments in support of the validity of the impugned finding and award of the tribunal holding the appellant-insurer also liable jointly and severally with respondent 2, owner of the vehicle, to pay compensation to the claimant.

( 9 ) THE short point, therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is: whether finding of the tribunal holding appellant insurance company also liable to pay compensation to the injured (claimant) is legally not correct and valid as he was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the private car of respondent 2?

( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent 2 was the owner and appellant was the insurer of the said car bearing registration No. Kln 1176 at the material time. Exhibit r-l is merely appellant's office copy of the relevant policy schedule. The copy o