Insurance policies excluding pillion rider risks are not liable for compensation in fatal accidents involving gratuitous passengers.

1. Being aggrieved with the award dated 28.11.2001, passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 1999 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), the insurer has filed this appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - claimants filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 21,40,000 on account of death of deceased Shiv Ratan in the motor accident which took place on 17.6.1999, when he was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter No. MP 27 - C 5513 which was driven by respondent No. 4. The scooter was insured with the appellant.
Tribunal held that since the scooter was insured with the appellant and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the scooter by its driver, therefore, the appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,76,000 as the compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - claimants on account of death of deceased Shiv Ratan who was husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It further awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., from 15.10.1999 till its realization.

3. Mr. R. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant insurer, raised only one point that the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the policy issued to the owner and the Tribunal erred in law in fastening the liability on the appellant insurer. Therefore, the appellant insurer deserves to be exonerated.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Sharmila Singhai and Mr. Dilip Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the records of the claim case.

6. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh , 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), the Apex Court, referring to the decision of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani , 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), held vide para 21 as under:
“(21) In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case (supra), were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger.”

7. If we look into the insurance policy, Exh. D2, filed in this case, it would appear that it was an Act Policy and no extra premium was paid for covering the risk of the pillion rider. Therefore, in view of the terms of the policy, the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased who was admittedly travelling as a pillion rider on the said scooter and the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law in holding that the appellant insurer would also be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for death of the deceased in the said accident.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed. The insurance company is exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - claimants awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Bholanath Ghosh and Salim Khan) alone would be jointly and severally liable to pay co