The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for the death or bodily injury to any person, including the pillion rider, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 15th Feb., 1994 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereby the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 1,05,000/-in favour of the respondent-claimants No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’) and against the appellant and respondent No. 5.

2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that on 8.1989 respondent No. 5 Prahlad Ram and deceased Om Prakash were proceeding from Siwana to Balotra on a Motor Cycle No. RNQ-4683 which was owned and driven by the respondent No. 5 and was under a valid insurance with the appellant on the relevant date. It was averred that the respondent No. 5 was driving the motor cycle at a great speed, rashly and negligently, The said motor cycle suddenly went off the road to its wrong side and collided with a tree at road side. Om Prakash who was a pillion rider of the said motor cycle sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries. The claimants who are legal representatives and dependents of the deceased Om Prakash filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/-against the owner and driver of the said motor cycle as also against the appellant insurer. The respondent No. 5 filed the written statement wherein it was admitted that the deceased Om Prakash was pillion rider on the motor cycle which was driven by No. 5, however, plea was taken whereby fact of negligence of the driver was denied. It was further pleaded that the said motor cycle was hit by a truck from behind which resulted in the said accident. The appellant also filed the written statement and in para 10(g) of the written statement, it was admitted that the said vehicle was insured for the period from 26th December, 1988 to 25th Dec., 1989 as such on the date of accident i.e. 2nd August, 1989 the said motor cycle was under valid insurance with the appellant. An additional plea was raised by the appellant that since the deceased Om Prakash was pillion rider, and, therefore, the appellant denied its liability. The Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues. The issue No. 3 is relevant which is as under:“As to whether the Insurance Company is not liable because Om Prakash was a pillion rider”.

3. The learned Tribunal decided the issue of negligency in favour of the claimants. Issue of quantum, i.e. issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 3 and 4 were decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimants and awarded the compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-in favour of the claimants and held the appellant insurer liable for compensation.

4. The finding of negligency of the respondent No. 5 is not under challenge.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the deceased Om Prakash was a pillion rider and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner insured. He further contended that the Tribunal fell in error in deciding the issue No. 3 against the appellant. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was pillion rider at the lime of accident, as also the said motor cycle was comprehensively insured with the appellant. The certificate of the insurance is placed on record. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the pillion rider is not a third party and the appellant has undertaken only to cover the risk of third party. He has relied on Judgment reported in Sada Nirmala & Ors. vs. Indrapaul Singh & Anr. (1), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. K.V. Sree Devi & Ors. (2), K. Velunni & Ors. vs. Premalatha & Ors. (3) and George Oakes Co. vs. V.5. Govindarajan (dead) Rep. L.Rs. & Ors. (4).

7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. K.V. Sree Devi & Ors. (supra), it was held by the Orisa High Court that pillion rider cannot be construed to be a