Judgement BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This appeal is at the instance of an Insurance Company and is directed against the award dated 31st January, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Alipore in M. A. C. Case No. 174 of 2004 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. 3. A pure question of law has arisen for determination in this appeal arising out of a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no dispute that the victim was a pillion rider on a Bajaj Pulsar Motorbike, owned by the insured, and the same was insured with the appellant based on the statutory third-party-risk coverage. According to the claimant, due to rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the said Motorbike, the victim had fallen down from the said Motorbike and died. In this case, no other vehicle is involved. 4. According to Mr. Singh, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, the victim, being a pillion rider on a Motorbike and no other vehicle being involved, was not entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company as no extra payment was charged by the Insurance Company for the purpose of taking responsibility of compensation in respect of the pillion rider beyond the statutory liability of third-party-risk. 5. Mr. Mondal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants, has on the other hand opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Singh and has strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Sood and another v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 744 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1433 ), where a three-Judges-Bench of that Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation for the loss suffered by a gratuitous passenger of the vehicle. He also relied upon the various decisions of different High Courts in support of his contention that even a gratuitous passenger is covered by the third-party-risk. 6. In view of importance of the points involved herein and in view of the conflicting decisions on the subject, we requested Mr. K. K. Das, the learned advocate to make submission as amicus curiae. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and Mr. 6. In view of importance of the points involved herein and in view of the conflicting decisions on the subject, we requested Mr. K. K. Das, the learned advocate to make submission as amicus curiae. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Das and after going through the materials on record, we find that there is no dispute that the vehicle was no doubt insured but only to the extent of the statutory third-party-risk. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Tilak Singh and others reported In 2006 (2) TAC 312 (SC) : ( AIR 2006 SC 1576 ), the Insurance Company owed no liability towards injury suffered by the pillion rider since statutory policy did not cover the risk of death or of bodily injury to a gratuitous passengers. In other words, the Supreme Court, as a proposition of law, laid down that the third-party-risk did not include the liability to compensate a gratuitous passenger of the insured vehicle. 8. While arriving at such conclusion, the said Division Bench took into consideration all the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court including those where apparently, some conflicting views were taken and ultimately, the said Bench distinguished those decisions. 9. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Das, by relying upon the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. C. M. Jaya and others reported in 2002 (3) TAC 434 (SC) : ( AIR 2002 SC 651 ), the statutory third-party insurance does not cover the injury suffered by or the death caused to the occupants of the vehicle who are not carried for hire or reward and the insurer cannot be held liable to undertake the liability of compensation in such circumstances. It was, however, pointed out that such fact did not prevent an insurer from entering into a contract of Insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute and even the risk to the gratuitous passengers could also be covered on payment of extra premium; but where the policy is a mere statutory third-party-risk policy, such policy cannot cover the risk of liability in case of death of such gratuitous passenger. The said five-Judges-Bench pointed out that in the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Sood and another v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 744 : (AIR 1988 SC 1433), the insurance was a comprehensive one and the relevant clauses of the policy specifically stated that the insurer had agreed to indemnify the insured against all the sums which the insured should become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to "any person" and according to the Supreme Court, the phrase "any person" would undoubtedly include an occupant of the insured car who was gratuitously travelling in it. 10. We, therefore, find that in case of death or bodily injury of a gratuitous passenger travelling as a pillion rider in a Motorbike, he, however, may be treated as a third party if another vehicle in found to be responsible for his injury or death, as the case may be, as was the situation in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. M. Jaya ( AIR 2002 SC 651 ) (supra) where the victim sitting on a pillion of a two-wheeler was involved in a fatal accident with a truck insured by the appellant; but in case of death or injury for the negligence of the driver of the selfsame Motorbike, he cannot, at any rate, be described as a third party so as to cover the liability of compensation by an ordinary third-party-risk coverage. In such a situation, unless it is established that the Insurance Company took extra premium for covering the liability of such pillion rider as well as was the fact in the case of Amrit Lal Sood ( AIR 1998 SC 1433 ) (supra), the claimants cannot bind the insurer of the said Motorbike to pay the compensation for the loss suffered by the victim. 11. The only point taken by the Insurance Company, thus, succeeds. We find that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount assessed by the Tribunal though the owner of the vehicle will be liable to pay such amount. 12. We, therefore, modify the award by fixing the liability upon the owner of the Motorbike, the respondent No. 5 in this appeal who did not contest either in the Court below or before this Court. 12. We, therefore, modify the award by fixing the liability upon the owner of the Motorbike, the respondent No. 5 in this appeal who did not contest either in the Court below or before this Court. The appeal, thus, is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 13. We record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Das as amicus curiae in arriving at our above conclusion. 14. RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly