1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th May, 1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 56,800/- in favour of the respondent-claimant No. 1 and against the appellant and respondent No. 2 and 3.

2. The appellant is insurer of motorcycle No. RNW 9291 which was involved in the accident resulting in injuries caused to the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal after recording the evidence, reached to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its driver respondent No. 3 Anil Kumar, respondent No. 1 (claimant) who was pillion rider on the said motorcycle, sustained injuries which resulted in fracture of his left leg's bone.

3. It s contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no first information report was lodged with the police of this accident and, therefore, the claim petition as such is not maintainable. He has relied on Rule 10.2 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), wherein along with claim petition, certain documents including first information report are to be filed. There is no mandatory requirement of filing the first information report. It is only in a case where the injured person or any other person, registers a case with the police, then only first information report is to be annexed, that is also not mandatory. It is for the claimant, if he relies on first information report, he may annex the same with claim petition. Non-filing or non-registration of F.I.R. cannot be said to be an impediment to lay claim for compensation arising out of the motor vehicle accident. Moreso, the claim petition is filed under the provision of section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). There is no such requirement in the Act.

4. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was pillion rider and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable for compensation. Admittedly, vehicle involved in accident was comprehensively insured by the appellant Insurance Company. Policy is already on record (C-19/2).

5. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Minaxi and others AIR 2000 Karnataka page 73 while deciding the case on identical facts held that 'any person. as envisaged under Section 147(1) of the Act also covers the pillion rider. Relying on the Tariff Advisory Committee letter dated 2nd June, 1986 wherein it was specifically mentioned as under :

"It has now been decided that the Standard Motor Cycle Comprehensive Policy should cover liability to Pillion Passengers treating them as occupants in the Motor Cycle and provide indemnity to such persons who are not carried for hire and reward."

6. It was further held that the term 'any person' used under Section 147(1) of the Act also covers the pillion rider. In 1998(1) TAC page 187 Rajasthan this Court held that any person other than the party to contract is a third party. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Faqir Chand and others 1996 ACJ 111 a similar view was taken by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. Madhya Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Company ltd. v. Riaz Mohammed and others 1996 ACJ 655 and in Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rayashree Rath and others 1998(1) TAC page 653 (Ori.) held that the insurer is the first party and the insured is the second party, other than two every person is a third party.

7. Chapter XI of the Act of 1988 deals with the Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks. The expression 'Third Party' has not been defined in the Act of 1988. Section 145(g) of the Act defines the word 'Third Party' includes the Government Generally, the word 'includes' is used, in the statute to give wider meaning of words or phrase occurring in the body of the statute. In Stroud's judicial dictionary, 3rd Ed. Vol. 4 page 3019- 3020,