Case at a Glance
A young man riding pillion on a scooter died when the vehicle struck a tree on the Agartala–Airport road on 29 June 2019. His parents’ claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was dismissed. In appeal, the Tripura High Court held that the scooter was covered only by an ‘Act/Liability’ policy, no extra premium was paid for a pillion rider, and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, not a third party. It also refused to apply ‘pay and recover’ since no liability had been fixed on the owner-driver, and dismissed the appeal.
The deceased was riding pillion on a two-wheeler driven by its owner (respondent 1) when, on 29 June 2019, it allegedly struck a tree at Natunnagar on the Agartala–Airport road. Both were injured and the pillion rider died at AGMC & GBP Hospital. His parents filed a claim (T.S. (MAC) 14 of 2021) against the owner and the insurer, New India Assurance. On 4 February 2026 the Tribunal dismissed the claim as not maintainable.
The policy (Exhibit ‘C’) was an ‘Act/Liability’ policy. It showed a premium of ₹1,175 for compulsory personal accident cover for the owner-driver, limited to ₹15 lakh, but no extra premium for a pillion rider. The insurer’s Administrative Officer testified that an Act policy does not cover occupants of a two-wheeler, and this was not rebutted. In appeal, the parents argued the policy was comprehensive and the pillion rider should be covered, or at least the insurer should be made to pay and recover; the respondents did not appear.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is an insurer liable for the death of a pillion rider under an ‘Act only’ two-wheeler policy with no extra premium, and can ‘pay and recover’ be directed?
A Pillion Rider Under an Act Policy Is Not a Third Party
Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud held that the accident, death and insurance were undisputed, so the only question was coverage. Reading Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court held that “a pillion rider cannot claim compensation from the insurance company under ‘Act on Policy’”. Since no extra premium was paid, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The claimants had not examined the owner, driver or investigating officer and had not rebutted the insurer’s witness that the policy did not cover occupants.
The Court relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V., (2008) 05 SC CK 0202 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, (2006) 04 SC CK 0005 (under which a pillion rider can be covered by paying an additional premium), along with Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 09 SC CK 0001 and Mohana Krishnan S. v. K. Balasubramaniyam. Because the victim was an occupant and not a ‘third party’, the insurer had no statutory liability. On pay and recover, the Court held that “unless accountability is fixed” on the owner or driver, the principle cannot be applied, and the Tribunal had made no adverse finding against them. The parents had also relied on Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, (2017) 02 SC CK 0036 and Kaminiben v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which the judgment does not discuss in detail.
What the Court Actually Held
- A basic ‘Act/Liability’ policy does not cover the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler unless an additional premium is paid.
- A pillion rider for whom no extra premium is paid is a gratuitous passenger, not a third party, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- ‘Pay and recover’ cannot be directed against the insurer where no liability has been fixed on the owner or driver.
- The parents’ appeal was dismissed and no compensation was awarded; records were ordered to be sent down.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many two-wheelers carry only the cheapest ‘Act’ policy; families of pillion riders may find no insurance cover at all.
- It shows the importance of proving the policy terms and examining the owner, driver and investigating officer at the Tribunal stage.
- It limits pay and recover to cases where the owner’s or driver’s liability is first established.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Vehicle Owners and Riders
- Check your two-wheeler policy: an ‘Act only’ policy may not cover a pillion rider.
- Paying the additional premium for pillion or occupant cover can make the difference for your family.
For Claimants’ Counsel
- Prove the policy terms and rebut the insurer’s witness if you claim comprehensive cover.
- Examine the owner, driver and investigating officer to fix liability; without it, pay and recover will not be ordered.
- Consider pursuing the owner-driver directly where the policy does not cover the victim.
Key Takeaways
- Act-only policies generally do not cover pillion riders.
- A pillion rider without extra premium is a gratuitous passenger.
- Pay and recover needs a finding fixing liability on the owner or driver.
- Evidence at the Tribunal stage decides coverage disputes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a pillion rider always without insurance cover?
No. Under Tilak Singh, a pillion rider can be covered if an additional premium is paid or the policy covers occupants; here the policy was an Act policy with no such premium.
Why was pay and recover refused?
Because the Tribunal had made no finding fixing accountability on the owner or driver, and the Court held pay and recover cannot apply unless accountability is fixed.
Did the insurer appear in the High Court?
No. The respondents did not appear, and the appeal was heard and decided on the record.
Conclusion
The Tripura High Court has held that a pillion rider killed on a scooter insured only under an Act policy, with no extra premium, was a gratuitous passenger, so the insurer was not liable and pay and recover could not be ordered.
Practical takeaway: Before filing a MACT claim for a pillion rider, check the policy type; and at the Tribunal, lead evidence to fix the owner’s or driver’s liability.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com