An insurance policy, being an Act policy, only covers the risk of third parties under the provisions of the Maharashtra Vehicles Act and does not extend coverage to pillion riders.

The only issue raised in this appeal, which is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2006 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 892/1997, is whether under Act Policy the risk of pillion rider is covered so as to make Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant jointly and severally alongwith owner of the vehicle.

2. For deciding this appeal, the facts which are necessary can be summarised as follows:

The deceased by name Jameel Amhed was a pillion rider on Bajaj Scooter bearing registration No. MH31/L1109, who died on 8.7.1997 at about 10.00 p.m. The said scooter met with an accident. It was a hit and run case. Jeep was driven by respondent no.1/respondent no.5 and found to be owned by respondent no.6 against whom the appeal is abated. The scooter was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. The offence in such case came to be registered against the offending vehicle at Wadi Police Station vide Crime no. 113/97. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are the legal heirs of deceased Jameel filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- on the ground that deceased was serving in Vidarbha Petroleum and was earning Rs.1600/- per month.

3. This petition came to be resisted by respondent no.5 and also the present appellant. A specific defence was taken by the present appellant in its written statement that the insurance policy of Bajaj scooter was only 'Act Policy' i.e. policy for act liability which covers the risk of third party only under the provisions of Maharashtra Vehicles Act. It was stated that under the Act Policy, the risk of the deceased who was pillion rider on the scooter was not covered, as he was not a third party and hence, appellant/insurance company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

4. Before the tribunal, the father of late Jamil examined himself and also produced on record the FIR, spot panchnama and other documents. On appreciation of the said evidence, the tribunal held the appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the scooter both jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- to the claimant, with future interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the whole amount.

5. As stated above, the only issue raised for consideration by learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is whether the learned tribunal has committed an error in holding appellant jointly and severally liable along with owner of the scooter to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and I find much substance and merit in the said submission. As per the admitted fact on record, deceased was proceeding on the scooter as pillion rider. This fact is admitted by his father, who is claimant. This fact is also reflected in the FIR and police papers. As regards the policy under which the scooter was insured with the appellant, its copy is produced on record of the trial Court at Exh.46 and it clearly shows that it was Act policy and hence, covering the liability of third party only. The law is clearly well settled that pillion rider cannot be a third party and, therefore so far as the death of pillion rider is concerned, it is held in the landmarked decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Vs. Asha Rani and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223, that in the case of gratuitous passengers the insurance coverage cannot be extended if it is act policy. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimala Vs. Tilak Singh & Ors., reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1822, it was held further that although the observations made in Asha Rani's case 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.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance in this respect on the judgment of D