Insurance liability does not cover pillion riders in accordance with established legal precedents.

1. The present appeal has been filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') against the award dated 5.8.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District Janjgir, Champa (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 37/2020. Vide the said award, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company (respondent No. 2 herein) and fastened the liability upon the father of the appellants / claimants (respondent No. 1) and has awarded an amount of Rs. 7,20,000 as compensation on account of death of mother of the appellants / claimants, namely, Meena Bai Suryavanshi, who is also the wife of respondent No. 1 herein.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants would assail the impugned judgment on the ground of quantum and would submit that the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company from the liability.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

4. It is an admitted fact that on 27.1.2020 deceased Meena Bai along with her husband was returning from Champa to Village Sothi on a motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 12 - AM 0106, which was being driven by her husband in a rash and negligent manner, due to which Meena Bai had fallen down and she received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The insurance company (respondent No. 2 herein) has specifically submitted in the written statement that the policy did not cover the pillion rider. Hence there is no liability of the insurance company.

5. It is now well established by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation to the pillion rider.

6. In the matter of General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi , 2009 ACJ 104 (SC), it was held that in the event of an accidental death of a pillion rider of a scooter, being a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation.

7. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V. , 2008 ACJ 2045 (SC), the following has been held in para 19:
"(19) The law which emerges from the said decisions is: (i) the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his / her risk; (ii) the legal obligation arising under S.147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider on a twowheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle."

8. In the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh , 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), it has been held in para 21 thus:
"(21) In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 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 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."

9. Apart from the above, this court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamta Prasad Sahu , 2022 ACJ 666 (Chhattisgarh), also reiterated the settled legal position that the pillion rider travelling on a twowheeler is not entitled to get any compensation or coverage und