JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Though various grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal at the hearing today, the learned Counsel for the appellant restricts challenge to only one issue, namely, the finding in the impugned award that considering that the deceased Vinod Kumar Joshi was a pillion rider, award has not to be satisfied by the insurance company in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

2. Date of accident is 25.10.1983. Deceased died in the midnight of 6/7.11.1983 due to the accident.

3. Claim petition had to be adjudicated under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Thus, the issue has to be considered in view of Section 95 of the said Act.

4. Needless to state, the Supreme Court held that a pillion rider would not be a third party and, Therefore, unless a specific premium was paid in respect of injury or death to a pillion rider on a two-wheeler scooter, insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the award.

5. Said decision has been noted by the learned trial Judge in holding that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award.

6. Unfortunately, a notification issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee applicabl