An insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased pillion rider if the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the pillion rider and no additional premium is paid to cover the risk.

( 1 ) THE learned Judge of 3rd Court, Motor accident Claim Tribunal, Midnapore (West)while disposing of M. A. C. Case No. 115 of 2003 of his file brought by Sri Amit Bar and another against the National Insurance Co. Ltd. by his order dated 26th July, 2004 determined a compensation amount of rs. 52,000/- in favour of the claimants and directed the National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the compensation amount.

( 2 ) SRI Amit Bar and another being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation amount determined by the learned Tribunal in their favour preferred f. M. A. T. 2829 of 2004, while, the National insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal directing it to pay the compensation amount preferred F. M. A. T. No. 3086 of 2004.

( 3 ) BY an order dated 13th November, 2006 recorded in the file of F. M. A. T. No. 2829 of 2004, a Division Bench of this Court was of the view that when F. M. A. T. No. 2829 of 2004 and F. M. A. T. No. 3086 of 2004 arose out of a common order of the Tribunal, both the appeals should be heard together and since the issue involved in both the appeals mainly relates to a question of law as to whether the claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get compensation, without calling for the Lower Court record, the question would be considered and for that purpose both the appeals should be posted 'for orders' to decide the question of law as referred to.

( 4 ) PURSUANT to the above order, we have taken up both F. M. A. T. No. 2829 of 2004 and f. M. A. T. No, 3086 of 2004 in presence of learned advocate of the respective parties and after considering submissions of the learned advocate of the respective parties, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by delivering this common judgment.

( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with the respective submissions put forward by the learned advocates, it would be proper on our part to bring on record the fact of the case in brief which gave birth to the present appeals:-

( 6 ) CLAIMANTS Amit Bar and another filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the ground that on 19th July, 2003 near Nimtala Gas Godown under P. S. Ghatal at about 5. 30 p. m. while victim Durga Bar, wife of one Ajit Bar was travelling by a motorcycle as a pillion rider, due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its owner Samit Bar, victim durga Bar suddenly fell from the motorcycle and in that process she received serious injury on her head and after two days from her admission in Ghatal Sub-divisional Hospital she succumbed to her injury.

( 7 ) THE claimants stated in the claim application that victim was an earning lady and the motorcycle bearing No. WB 30b/ 1919 was duly insured with National insurance Co. Ltd. and the insurance policy was valid up to 28th March, 2004. The claimants prayed for compensation both from the owner as well as from the insurance company.

( 8 ) BEFORE the learned Tribunal, the national Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the claim application by filing written objection contending inter alia that it had no responsibility for payment of compensation in view of the fact and circumstances disclosed in the claim application and since the victim died due to rash and negligent act on the part of the owner of the motorcycle, the owner of the motorcycle was liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company also challenged the quantum of compensation.

( 9 ) THE learned Tribunal after considering evidence adduced by the claimants and after hearing submissions of the learned advocate appearing for the claimants and the National insurance Co. ultimately decided that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 52,000/- as compensation on account of death of victim durga Bar and the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation.

( 10 ) WE have stated earlier that claimants amit Bar and another being dissat