( 1. ) THIS appeal is at the instance of Insurance Company in a proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and is directed against an award dated 29th April 1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux] at Bhavnagar in MACP No. 164 of 1984 thereby disposing of the proceedings for compensation by awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization and holding that the Insurance Company, the owner of the offending vehicle and the driver thereof are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal.

( 2. ) MR. Tailor, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has raised a pure question of law in this appeal as to the liability of his client, the Insurance Company, to pay the amount when admittedly the victim was a pillion rider of the two-wheeler, a Hero Magestic Moped, which was involved in the accident. There is no dispute that in the case before us, no other vehicle was involved and according to the claimant, the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Moped on which the victim was travelling as a pillion rider.

( 3. ) IT appears that the aforesaid point has now been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. SUDHAKARAN K.V. AND OTHERS reported in 2008 ACJ 2045 and also in the case of GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED INDUSRANCE CO. LTD. vs. M. LAXMI reported in AIR 2009 SC 626 wherein it has been held that a pillion rider on a two-wheeler cannot be treated as a third-party in respect of insurer of the selfsame vehicle and the legal obligation of the insurer under section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to the injury or death of a pillion rider.

( 4. ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the above cases, the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in making the INsurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation along with driver and owner of the vehicle.

( 5. ) AT this stage, Mr. Soni, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant, strenuously contended before me that I should, by following the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of ICICI LOMBARD G.I.C. LTD. vs. V.H. VADHER reported in 2009 (4) GLR 3426 and also in the case of BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DF.N. NAI reported in 2008 (5) GLR 3694, at least direct the Insurance Company to make payment to the claimant, and give liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle.

( 6. ) IN the case of ICICI LOMBARD G.I.C. LTD. [supra], the learned Single Judge of this Court was considering a case where the policy issued by the INsurance Company was a comprehensive policy. IN that context, the learned Single Judge rejected the contentions of the learned advocate for the appellant that the risk of pillion rider was not covered by the INsurance Policy.IN the case before us, undisputedly the policy is not a comprehensive one but is limited to third-party liability only. Therefore, the said decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case.

( 7. ) IN the other case of BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (supra), the learned Single Judge, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ZAHARULNISHA reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3252 held that in case of liability of the insurer for third-party risks, statute raises a legal fiction that insurer would be deemed to be a judgment-debtor in respect of liability and the violation of the provisions of the Act may result in absolving insurers, but same may not necessarily hold good in case of a third-party as a statutory one.

( 8. ) WITH great respect to the said learned Single Judge, I am unable to follow the said decision as a precedent for the simple reason that His Lordship has totally overl