JUDGMENT : P.R. Raman, J. The appellant is challenging the award in O.P. (MV) No. 866 of 2002 on the file of M.A.C.T., Kasargod. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased pillion rider in the motor cycle. The accident occurred on 14.4.2002 and the vehicle in which he was travelling hit a lorry and as a result the pillion rider died in the accident. It was found that the negligence is on the part of motorcyclist. 2. Even though the motor cycle is insured with appellant herein, the question that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the awarded amount as per the policy of insurance? The Claims Tribunal passed an award quantifying the compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,94,500 with 9 per cent interest from the date of application till 31.12.2004 and thereafter at 6 per cent till realisation. The respondent No. 2, who was the appellant therein, was directed to deposit the amount within one month. Exh. B1 was the certified copy of the policy. It was the specific contention in the written statement that it is not a comprehensive policy or extended policy to cover a pillion rider and no additional premium was paid. Hence, the award of the Tribunal making the appellant liable is not legally correct. 3. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 404 , parties are ad idem that the question as to whether the pillion rider is entitled to compensation by the insurance company in the absence of any policy of an extended nature, it is now squarely covered by the Apex Court in Tilak Singh's case (supra), wherein it was held that the pillion rider will not be covered by Act policy. 4. In such circumstances, following the decision of the Apex Court, it has to be' held that the award, making the appellant liable, is bad in law and the same is set aside. The remaining part of the award is not disturbed. The deposited amount in such circumstances, is liable to be refunded on an application made by the appellant before the M.A.C.T. In case, the amount is already withdrawn, it is open to the appellant to proceed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 5. The remaining part of the award is not disturbed. The deposited amount in such circumstances, is liable to be refunded on an application made by the appellant before the M.A.C.T. In case, the amount is already withdrawn, it is open to the appellant to proceed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 5. M.A.C.A. is disposed of with the above observation.