JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C. J—This appeal is by the Insurance Company—appellant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu dated 31st December, 1993 in Claim Petition No. 24 of 1993. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition in addition to Rs. 5,000 as consortium and Rs. 3,000 as conventional charges. 2. Alongwith the Insurance Company, the driver and the owner of the motor cycle in question were made jointly and severally liable. It may be stated that there were three petitioners who filed the claim petition, namely, husband of the deceased and her two major sons. The Tribunal apportioned Rs. 48,000 as share of the husband and Rs. 10,000 each as share of the two sons. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. On 5th February, 1992 Smt. Bimla Devi, deceased, had gone to Sharbai to attend a function and after attending the said function she was waiting for a bus to return home. In the meantime, the motor cycle bearing registration No HIS-832, owned by proforma respondent No 4 herein, driven by Harvinder Singh, proforma respondent No. 5, came from the other side. It was about 5.15 p. m. As proforma respondent No. 5 herein was well known to the deceased, she took lift as a pillion rider. As soon as the motor cycle reached Sharabai Homeguard Camp it met with an accident and the deceased fell down on the road suffering head injuries She was removed to the Civil Hospital, Kullu where she died on the next day. At the time of her death she was aged 50 years and was a partner of Laxmi Cloth House. In addition, she had two knitting machines and her total income as per the claim petition was Rs. 3,000 per month. It was alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of proforma respondent No, 5, herein. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is barred by limitation ? OPR 4. Whether the petition is collusive ? OPR 5. Relief. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the claim petition and also held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving It was also held that the claim was not collusive. As stated above, the compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents It may be stated that while assessing the compensation the monthly contribution of the deceased was taken as Rs. 500 and the multiplier of 10 was used. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. We have perused the evidence on record regarding condonation of delay and the amount of compensation awarded. The findings of the Tribunal on these points cannot be faulted, So also the rejection of the plea that the claim petition was collusive one. 6. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised two points, namely, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and, as such, not entitled to get any compensation and secondly the Insurance Policy Ex. RW 1/C does not cover the risk of the pillion rider. 7. As far as the first point is concerned i e. regarding gratuitous passenger, we find that this plea was taken in written objections filed on behalf of the Insurance Co, but this plea was neither raised before the Tribunal nor put in the cross-examination to any witness produced by the claimants as well as other respondents. On the top of that no issue was framed on this point Therefore, merely on the ground that this plea was taken in written objections, we are unable to accept this contention of gratuitous passenger in view of the facts stated above. On the top of that no issue was framed on this point Therefore, merely on the ground that this plea was taken in written objections, we are unable to accept this contention of gratuitous passenger in view of the facts stated above. It is true that the deceased was waiting for a bus and the driver of the motor cycle was known to her and offered the deceased lift as a pillion rider on the motor cycle but from this fact we cannot hold that the deceased was taken by the driver of the motor cycle as a pillion rider for hire on reward as there is no evidence on record. In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. H Siddalinga Naika and others, AIR 1984 Knt 228 In the above case the Division Bench noted that the Chairman of the Sugar Factory had sent the jeep to bring the persons concerned. That being so, he cannot be heard to say that the person who was travelling in the jeep was a gratuitous passenger. In the case in hand also it cannot be said that as the deceased was travelling at the invitation of the driver of the motor cycle she was a gratuitous passenger. 8. A number of decisions have been placed before us including New India Assurance Co. Ltd v K. V. Sree Devi and others, 1991 ACJ 610, to bring home the point that gratuitous passenger cannot claim compensation. We need not decide this point in the case in hand as we have held that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger and we keep this point open to be decided in an appropriate case, more particularly, in view of the decision of the live Judges Bench of Gauhati High Court in New India Assurance Co, Ltd. v. Sctyatiath Hazarika and others^ i989 ACJ 685 The decision was rendered by Honble Mr. Justice B. L. Hansaria, as his Lordship then was, and one of us (Mr. Justice B. L. Hansaria, as his Lordship then was, and one of us (Mr. Justice S N. Phukan) was a member of that Bench In that decision relying on the instruction of Tariff Advisory Committee requiring insurance companies to mandatorily incorporate a clause in the contract to indemnify the insured in respect of compensation for death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the motor car provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward i. e. gratuitous passenger w e f 25-3-197?, it was held that the Insurance Company was liable for death or bodily injury of gratuitous passenger. 9. Coining to the policy in question (Ex, RW i/C) the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has failed to draw our attention to any clause of the policy in which the Insurance Company is not liable for the death of the deceased who was a pillion rider. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is rejected in the circumstances, we hold that the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the entire-amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We may state here that the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that from the award, the interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 should have been excluded We find from the record that a sum of Rs. 25,000 was deposited vide F. D R. No. 9284s() dated 31st December, 1993. On this point the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is right and we accordingly direct that a sum of Rs. 25,000 shall be deducted from the final payment of compensation. 10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.