JUDGMENT:- This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurance company in O.P. No.l96 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The respondents 1 to 6 are the claimants. The appeal in respect of the respondents 3 to 6 is dismissed for default on 19.2.2002. 3. The said O.P. was filed by the respondents 1 to 6 claiming Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of one Vamsi Krishnaveni in a motor accident occurred on 25.4.1993. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter bearing No.AIV -4015, which belongs to the first respondent in the O.P. The first respondent while driving the scooter in high speed was unable to control the scooter and applied sudden brakes. On account of that, the deceased fell down, received severe injuries on the head and died instantaneously. The third respondent is the owner of the scooter. He gave it to the first respondent at his request. The scooter met with an accident. 4. The insurance company contended that there is a breach of term of contract and the scooter was driven by the first respondent, who is not having valid driving licence and the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the first respondent. Though there was insurance policy to cover the third party risk, there was no premium paid for the risk of either the driver or the pillion rider of the scooter. Therefore, there was violation of the terms of the policy. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,19,000/towards compensation to the second petitioner directing the insurance company to deposit the amount within one month from the date of the award. 6. The insurance company, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, preferred the present appeal contending that as the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of the liability of the insurance company is liable to be set aside. 6. The insurance company, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, preferred the present appeal contending that as the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of the liability of the insurance company is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company relied on a decision in United Insurance Company Limited, Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others, 2006 (3) ALD 75 (SC) = 2006 (1) DT (SC) 479, wherein the Supreme Court held that the insurance company owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased-pillion rider as the insurance policy was a statutory policy and hence, it did not cover the risk of gratuitous passenger. 7. There is no dispute that the first respondent borrowed the scooter from the third respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle. When the first respondent was proceeding on the scooter, the deceased asked for lift to go to P.F. Office and the first respondent obliged and the deceased travelled as pillion rider on the scooter. But on the way, the deceased slipped from the scooter, received head injury and died in the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. 8. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, EX.A.8 was an act policy. It does not cover the risk of the person travelling on the scooter, as no additional premium was paid to that effect. Therefore, it covers the risk of the third party only. In the light of the above judgment, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal to the extent of making the insurance company liable to pay the compensation is set aside. If any amount is paid by the insurance company to the claimants, it may not be recovered from the claimants. However, the insurance company is at liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. No order as to costs.