Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal making the Insurance Company liable for the compensation amount awarded. Claimant was traveling from Bombay to Kasaragode in a Maruti Omni and when it reached the place called Kumta in Karnataka State, it stopped for facilitating the passengers to take tea. Claimant alighted from the Maruti Omni. First respondent driver then took the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in the reverse direction and hit the claimant, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. Claimant was taken to Canera Health Centre, Kumta. He was treated there and later he was taken to a Nursing Home at Kasaragod and he was treated therein as inpatient from 4-6-1999 to 6-6-1999. Later he was taken to the Kumaran’s Hospital, Coimbatore and treated there from 7-6-1999 to 27-6-1999. According to him, the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Second respondent was the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was covered by a valid policy. A total amount of Rs.5 lakhs was claimed by the claimant. Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,20,600/-. Insurance Company is aggrieved by that part of the award making the Insurance Company liable, hence this appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company expressed serious doubt about the accident itself. Further it is also stated that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle and the vehicle was having an act only policy and the gratuitous passenger is not covered by that policy. Under such circumstance learned counsel submitted that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the apex court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 404). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant on the other hand, contended that the accident had occurred in the manner stated by him. Further it was stated that it was due to the negligence of the first respondent driver, the accident had occurred and the Tribunal has rightly found that he was negligent. But no adequate compensation was granted and hence claimant has filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Further it was stated that it was due to the negligence of the first respondent driver, the accident had occurred and the Tribunal has rightly found that he was negligent. But no adequate compensation was granted and hence claimant has filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel also submitted that the moment he alighted from the vehicle he ceased to be a passenger and hence the Insurance Company is bound to compensate the claimant. 4. Law is settled by the Apex Court in Tilak Singh’s case that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to the injuries sustained by a gratuitous passenger if the policy is only a statutory policy. Policy has been produced by the Insurance Company, which would indicate that the policy is a act only policy. If that be so, going by the above judgment gratuitous passenger is not covered. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. Scope of section 147 was considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004 (1) KLT 938 (SC). It is stated that the words “any person” could be held not to include the owner of the goods or his authorized representative traveling in the vehicle. The scope of this rational does not however, extend to cover the class of cases where gratuitous passengers for whom no insurance policy was envisaged, and for whom no insurance premium was paid. This question came up for consideration before the Orissa High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Lata Rout & others, II (2001) ACC 646) and also in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Martin Kanduna and another, (1995 ACJ 522). 5. We are in agreement with the principle laid down by the Orissa High Court. When a passenger gets down from the bus he never ceases to be a passenger unless its journey terminates there. Status of the passenger is a continuing one till he reaches his destination. Petitioner was traveling from Bombay to Kasaragod. Kumta, a place at Karnataka which was not his destination, claimant alighted from the vehicle when it was stopped for the passengers to take a tea. The mere fact that he alighted from the vehicle does not mean that he ceases to be a passenger. Petitioner was traveling from Bombay to Kasaragod. Kumta, a place at Karnataka which was not his destination, claimant alighted from the vehicle when it was stopped for the passengers to take a tea. The mere fact that he alighted from the vehicle does not mean that he ceases to be a passenger. Since he is a gratuitous passenger, act only policy, will not come to his rescue. That being the situation we are inclined to allow this appeal and hold that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable since policy was only an act only policy. However, it is open to the claimant to realize the amount from other respondents. The principle of pay and recovery also does not apply to this case, as the passenger in the private omni car was not covered by the act only policy. We are of the view, the amount awarded is just and proper warranting no interference, therefore cross appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed as above.