JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.04.2005, the deceased Ratan Pujari, while returning from Dimow to his house, Silapathar by a Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AS-22/6153 fell down from the wooden bridge of Jalakiasuti and he died on the spot. It was purely an accident as the bridge was under construction. An unnatural death case was registered vide Silapathar UD Case No. 9 of 2005. The Appellant No. 1, being the legal wife and the Appellant Nos. 2 & 3, being the sons of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' in short), Dhemaji under Sections 160 and 140of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was pleaded that the accident was not due to negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased but it was purely an accident as the bridge was under construction. 2. The Appellant as opposite party No. 2 filed written statement before the learned Tribunal denying liability to pay any compensation unless and until it is proved that the person at the wheel was having valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle and the vehicle was roadworthy to ply having all valid documents as required under the M. V. Act. There is no cause of action as against the insurer as no extra premium is paid by the owner of the motor cycle. 3. The owner of the motor cycle also filed written statement pleading that the motor cycle was under insurance coverage at the relevant time and the driver (deceased Ratan Pujari) had a valid driving licence. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (i) Whether there is a cause of action? (ii) Whether there is violation of policy condition? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to reliefs as prayed? 4. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the materials and evidence on records and after hearing the parties, passed an award for Rs. 5,94,000/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety-four thousand) only with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realisation and directing the Opposite party- Insurance Company (Appellant) to deposit the amount within 3 (three) months from the date of judgment and award. 5,94,000/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety-four thousand) only with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realisation and directing the Opposite party- Insurance Company (Appellant) to deposit the amount within 3 (three) months from the date of judgment and award. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 09.06.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 22 of 2005, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Co. and also heard Mr. Bimal Chetri, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None appears for Respondent No. 4. 6. Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Co. submits that there is no cause of action for the claimant to file the claim petition under Sections 166 of the MV Act, 1988 against the owner & insurer inasmuch as the owner of the vehicle (motor cycle) has no legal duty towards the tortfeasor and the deceased himself has caused the accident without the involvement of any other person or outside agency. The owner of the vehicle (motor cycle) has no vicarious liability while the liability of the insurer is contractual and the deceased himself is a tortfeasor. The motor cycle, at the relevant time, was used either for hire or reward which is a clear violation of the policy condition, and in such circumstances, the liability, if any, shall be that of the owner of the vehicle and the insurer is entitled to avoid liability even if it is found to be covered by policy. The Appellant-Insurance Company cannot be made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when there was no policy coverage for the person driving the vehicle except the owner-driver, which is also limited to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) only. There was no comprehensive policy to cover third party risk. 7. In order to establish the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ahmed relies upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. (reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404 . In this regard, he also cites the following cases decided by the Apex Court: (1) Rameshray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 664 (2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. (reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404 . In this regard, he also cites the following cases decided by the Apex Court: (1) Rameshray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 664 (2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 417 (3) Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Ors. (2007 (2)TAC 417 (SC) (4) Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. (1977) 2 SCR 886 . (5) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tajore v. Natarajan and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 137 & (6) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 476 8. Mr. Chetri, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 3, countered the submissions of the Appellant-Insurance Company, on the following scores: (i) The Insurance Company is restricted to only those grounds taken in the written statement and by way of making submissions that the insurance coverage is limited only to owner-driver to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, the Appellant has raised a new plea/ground in the appeal, which is not permissible under the law under Section 149 (2) of the MV Act. In this regard, he refers to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Birendra Mohan De and Ors. (reported in1995 (2) GLT 218. (ii) The deceased had the valid effective driving licence of light motor vehicle (LMV) at the time of using/driving the motor cycle and the driver's liability was covered by the comprehensive insurance policy and hence, the claimant is entitled to get relief/award and the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited. In this regard, reference has been made to a full bench decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Amritlal Sood and Anr. v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thappar and Ors. (reported in (1998) 3 SCC 744 . In order to establish his submissions, he also cities the following cases: (1) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Bai 1999 (2) TAC 1 (Raj) (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prafulla Kumar Prusty and Anr., 1993 SCJ 1225 (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Faquir Chand and Ors. ( 1996 ACJ 111 (4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hazira Begum and Ors. (1995 ACJ 236 (5) M.A. Razak v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Bai 1999 (2) TAC 1 (Raj) (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prafulla Kumar Prusty and Anr., 1993 SCJ 1225 (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Faquir Chand and Ors. ( 1996 ACJ 111 (4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hazira Begum and Ors. (1995 ACJ 236 (5) M.A. Razak v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1998 ACJ 948 (6) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vibhuti and Ors. (ACJ 769 (7) Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy & Ors. 1996 ACJ 1044. 9. The most important point for decision in this case is whether the deceased is a 'third party' within the meaning of Section 145 (g) and whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under Section 147 of the MV Act. The Chapter-XI deals with Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks. Under Section 146 (1), no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is a valid policy of insurance, which complies with the requirements of this Chapter. Under Section 147 of the MV Act provides for mandatory requirements of such policies. For better appreciation of the import of Section 147, it is appropriate to quote as under: 147. Under Section 147 of the MV Act provides for mandatory requirements of such policies. For better appreciation of the import of Section 147, it is appropriate to quote as under: 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability -- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which -- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of person specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2)-- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not required -- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee -- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Section 147(1)(b)(i) speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place whereas sub-clause thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of the vehicle against the death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. The provisions under the aforesaid section, therefore, provide for two types of insurance (i) statutory and (ii) contractual in nature. The Insurance Company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident. There may be a case involving the owner of the vehicle or others which would require payment of additional premium for covering their life and property. 10. In the present case, the deceased is neither the owner of the motor cycle nor a pillion rider of the motor cycle driven by its owner to be covered by the statutory insurance. The deceased is also not a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle to be covered by a contractual insurance. 11. The core issue involved in this case has been discussed and decided by the Apex Court in Sadanand Mukhi's case (supra), which is similar to the appeal at hand. I would not, rather I feel it as an unnecessary exercise to discuss all the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the parties inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases and the issues involved are not similar to the present one. The case of Sadanand Mukhi (supra) involves accident and death by driving of motor cycle by the son of the insured, namely, the owner. The Insurance Company contended that keeping in view the relationship between the deceased son and the father, the deceased was not a 'third party' and the father as claimant can not seek compensation on the basis of provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the claimant-father. Against the Tribunal's aforesaid order, the Insurance Company filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court. The Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the claimant-father. Against the Tribunal's aforesaid order, the Insurance Company filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court. The Insurance Company further appealed before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court, in Paras 13 & 14 of the judgment dealt with provisions under the MV Act in regard to statutory and contractual insurance, which are quoted for better appreciation as under: 13. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the quantum of the premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an "Act policy" the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If the contention of the learned Counsel is to be accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act become otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. If is one thing to say life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act. It is not for the Court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational. 14. Only because driving of a motor vehicle may cause accident involving loss of life and property and not only of a third party but also the owner of the vehicle and the insured vehicle itself, different provisions have been made in the Insurance Act as also the Act laying down different types of insurance policies. 14. Only because driving of a motor vehicle may cause accident involving loss of life and property and not only of a third party but also the owner of the vehicle and the insured vehicle itself, different provisions have been made in the Insurance Act as also the Act laying down different types of insurance policies. The amount of premium required to be paid for each of the policy is governed by the Insurance Act. A statutory regulatory authority fixes the norms and the guidelines. In the aforesaid cited case, only an "Act policy" was taken in respect of the motor vehicle and there was no contractual insurance for additional risk. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Apex Court held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 12. Coming to the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was holding a valid licence for driving motor cycle and he was not the owner of the accident vehicle. He used the said motor cycle with the permission of the registered owner. On perusal of the written statement filed by Shri Sanjoy Phukan, owner of the motor cycle, it is found that he made a statement to the effect that the motor cycle "which was driven by the deceased late Ratan Pujari was. under coverage of general policy No. 739 for 2005 at the time of accident". In Para 9 of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, it is averred that: the Opposite Party No. 1, the owner of the two wheeler had not paid any extra prem ium to cover any other person to drive or ride vehicle except for the owner-driver i.e. for the Opposite Party No. 1 himself as such, the policy did not cover the risk. The aforesaid pleadings of the owner of the motor cycle and the Insurance Company lead one to a conclusion that, there was no contractual insurance by way of payment of extra premium to cover any other person to drive or ride the vehicle except for the owner-driver. This position is indisputable and it is rather found proved. 13. Because of the aforesaid law settled by the Apex Court, I am bound to hold that the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant- Respondents. This position is indisputable and it is rather found proved. 13. Because of the aforesaid law settled by the Apex Court, I am bound to hold that the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant- Respondents. The impugned judgment and award dated 09.06.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 22 of 2005 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. 15. The Respondents-claimants are not entitled to get compensation from the Appellant-Insurance Company. However, taking into consideration that the Respondents-claimants are suffering a lot due to death of the deceased, who was the sole bread earner of the family, it is directed that the Appellant-Insurance Company shall not claim back whatever amount has already been paid to them in compliance to the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 16. Send down the records to the learned Tribunal forthwith. Appeal allowed