JudgmentJudgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle challenging the impugned award whereby claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been awarded compensation for the death of one Balwinder Singh and the insurer has been absolved from its liability to pay. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that one Balwinder Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 10.3.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of one Alto car bearing registration No. HR 08-G 4578 by the appellant. The respondents-claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation. 3. Upon notice, appellant denied the accident. Respondent insurance company also denied its liability to pay. The Tribunal concluded that the accident in question took place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car by the appellant and held that respondents are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,90,000. 4. However, the Tribunal further held that since no extra premium was paid by the insured to cover any gratuitous passengers, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay any compensation on account of death of Balwinder Singh who was admittedly a gratuitous passenger. 5. Challenging the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that under the new Act, insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger for vehicle of any type or class and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company cannot be excluded in such a case. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has controverted the stand taken by the counsel for the appellant and has argued that the judgment in Satpal Singhs case, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), cited by the counsel for the appellant has been specifically overruled in a specific judgment cited as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC). Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court of India in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC) and in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC). Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court of India in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC) and in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC), to argue that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation for such gratuitous passenger. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Admittedly, the deceased Balwinder Singh was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the offending car in question and no extra premium was paid by the insured to the insurer to cover any such risk of a gratuitous passenger in the offending car. I find no merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant as the law is well settled in this regard by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. No merit. Dismissed.