The first respondent in the appeal met with an accident. The vehicle was a motorcycle belonging to the second respondent. Its rider was the third respondent. The first respondent was pillion rider. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the third respondent. It awarded Rs.19,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. The appellant, insurance company was directed to pay the amount as it had issued a policy in respect of the vehicle. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant had issued a policy the first respondent was a gratuitous passenger and the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
Though notice of the first respondent was published there has been no representation for him.
M.A.C.A. No.1232 of 2013
-2-
4. The facts are not in dispute. The first respondent was a pillion rider. He was a gratuitous passenger. The policy was an Act only policy. In view of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)] that a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle is not entitled to insurance coverage, the direction in the award to the appellant to pay the compensation cannot be sustained.
In the result, this appeal is allowed.
The appellant is exonerated from paying the compensation to the first respondent.
No costs. The amount deposited by the appellant will be refunded.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/