The main legal point established in the judgment is that pillion riders are covered under the act policy, and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insurer based on the instructions issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee.

Rekha Mittal, J.

This order will dispose of FAO Nos. 1238 of 1997 National Insurance Company Limited v. Surjit Kaur and others' and No.1610 of 1997 Surjit Kaur v. Dilbag Singh and others' as these have emerged out of the same award dated 06.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby Surjit Kaur (claimant) has been allowed compensation in respect of death of Joginder Singh in a motor vehicular accident.

FAO No. 1238 of 1997

2. Counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the company') has submitted that as the deceased was travelling on a pillion of motorcycle No.HR-05-B-7098 insured with the company, the company is not liable to pay compensation as the policy in question is an act policy and pillion rider under the act policy cannot be considered to be third party. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgments "New India Assurance Company Limited v. K. Rajanna and others", 1995 ACJ 1015, "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ashok Kumar Acharya and others", 1995 ACJ 189 and "Surjit Singh v. Santosh Kumar and others", 1989 ACJ 466.

3. Counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, has submitted that compensation in respect of pillion rider was considered by the Tariff Advisory Committee and it was decided that death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motorcycle would be covered provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. The instructions were made effective w.e.f. 25.03.1977. The Tariff Advisory Committee had directed; "All existing policies should be deemed to incorporate this amendment automatically" irrespective of the fact whether it is 'Act Policy' or a 'comprehensive policy'. It is argued that the instructions issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee that were made effective w.e.f. 25.03.1977 remained in vogue even on the date of accident that took place on 09.01.1994. In support of his contention, he has referred to a Division Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court "United India Insurance Company Limited v. Prem Singh and others", 2001 ACJ 1445.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper book particularly the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

5. There is no dispute that the deceased was a pillion rider on motorcycle No.HR-05-B-7098 which was driven by Dilbag Singh son of Banta Singh. Counsel for the company has fairly conceded that in none of the judgments passed by different High Courts wherein it has been held that pillion rider under the act policy cannot be considered to be a third party, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, the instructions issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee that were made effective w.e.f. 25.03.1977 were brought to the notice of the Court. On the contrary, counsel for the company has nothing to submit that the instructions relied upon by counsel for the claimant were ever withdrawn or modified by the Tariff Advisory Committee till the date accident in question took place. In the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Company's case (supra), in para 17, the Court has noted that counsel for the insurance company was requested to verify if the instructions of the Tariff Advisory Committee dated 13.03.1978 were followed by the insurance company and counsel, on instructions from the insurance company fairly conceded that the instructions of the Tariff Advisory Committee were followed by the insurance company. It has further been noticed that the instructions were noticed by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in "Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Daniel", 2000(2) TAC 74 (Kerala). Taking into consideration the instructions, the Court held that pillion riders are covered under the act policy and insurance company is liable to indemnify the insurer.

6. In the light of judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the year 2000 co