JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.M. Ali, leaned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Guite, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. None appears for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 11th November, 2008 passed by the learned Member, Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 98 of 2005 awarding Rs. 1,64,500/- as quantum of compensation with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition on 2.9.2005 till realization of the entire amount awarded in favour of the claimant. 3. The short facts leading to the present proceeding originate from an accident which occurred on 5.9.2002. In the said accident, on Lalremtluangliani aged about 17 years died. She was a pillion rider of the scooter, bearing registration No. MZ 01/A-3482, driven by its owner R. Vanlalhriata. Thereafter, she was admitted in the Hospital with grievous injuries where she died on 8.9.2002. No police case, nor even a GD entry was made in connection with the said accident. However, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station issued a certificate dated 10.9.2002 (Exhibit-C/2) to the effect that the accident occurred when the driver of the scooter was negotiating a curve. As there was no rush and negligent driving, no case was registered. The discharge card of the Civil Hospital, Aizawl and the deposition of the medical officer would show that the victim died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The driver of the scooter also deposed about the accident and the injuries of the victim. There is no dispute that the scooter was insured with the appellant at the time of accident. Basing on the above evidence and materials, the learned Tribunal passed an award for an amount of Rs. 1,64,500/- in favour of the claimant with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the whole amount vide judgment and award dated 17th August, 2006. Basing on the above evidence and materials, the learned Tribunal passed an award for an amount of Rs. 1,64,500/- in favour of the claimant with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the whole amount vide judgment and award dated 17th August, 2006. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant filed earlier an appeal being MAC Appeal No. 40 of 2006 which was disposed of on 1.11.2007 whereby the aforesaid appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 17th August, 2006 and remanding the case to the learned Tribunal with a direction to the claimant to impugned the parents of the deceased. While remanding the case, this Court directed that the evidence already recorded may be taken into consideration for passing a fresh award after giving the parties opportunities to adduce further evidence particularly on adoption, if so advised. 4. The necessity for impleading the parents of the deceased arose in view of fact that the claim petition was filed by the uncle of the deceased although both the mother and father of the deceased are still alive although they have been divorced. The claimant (uncle) claimant that the deceased was his adopted daughter and he was looking after her since the divorce of her parents and it has been contended by the appellant that the claimant (uncle) is not a legal representative and he cannot be allowed to take away the benefits of the welfare legislation for the reason that the mandatory provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 have not been complied with. 5. The leaned Tribunal, on remand, on application made by the claimant, impleaded the parents of the deceased as opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. They appeared before the learned Tribunal and were examined and cross-examination by the counsel for the parties. As per evidence of the parents, after their divorce, their daughter was adopted by the claimant (uncle) and she was looked after by him till her death in the said accident. Further evidence of the parents is that they do not have objection to the claim petition filed by the claimant (uncle). As per evidence of the parents, after their divorce, their daughter was adopted by the claimant (uncle) and she was looked after by him till her death in the said accident. Further evidence of the parents is that they do not have objection to the claim petition filed by the claimant (uncle). On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal, while disposing the appeal vide its impugned judgment and award dated 11th November, 2008, maintained the award made earlier in the judgment and award dated 17th August, 2006 and directed the appellant to deposit the awarded amount in cash or by way of cheque or by an account payee demand draft in favour of the Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl for disbursement to the claimant. Being further aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award dated 11.11.2008, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Although, the appellant has taken as many as 5 grounds in the present appeal, Mr. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant would like to address on the ground Nos. iv and v only. The said grounds are quoted below: (iv) For that the policy of Insurance by which the claimant respondent claimed compensation against the appellant is an Act Policy and unless additional premium in respect of pillion rider is paid by the insured, the Insurance Company in not entitled to indemnify the insured. (v) For that as per Indian Motor Tariff Rules under Sheet No. 63 dated 1.5.2001 there art two clear guidelines for payment of additional premiums for the passengers/pillion riders in respect of two wheelers. The required payment of additional premium for two wheelers upto 200 CC and above 200 CC have been notified. The said Tariff Rules clearly fixed various amount for the two wheelers. The policy of Insurance taken against the said scooter is a long term policy which shall continue till the registration is cancelled which is over 10 years and the amount of the policy for 10 years or above was Rs. 498/- for the said scooter but an amount of Rs. 410/- was paid by the then insured Shri Vanlalbela while the present owner, the respondent No. 2 did not make any fresh arrangement with the appellant in respect of making payment of additional premium covering the risk of the pillion rider. 7. Mr. 498/- for the said scooter but an amount of Rs. 410/- was paid by the then insured Shri Vanlalbela while the present owner, the respondent No. 2 did not make any fresh arrangement with the appellant in respect of making payment of additional premium covering the risk of the pillion rider. 7. Mr. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant, referring to the insurance policy No. 130502/31/97/01831, issued by the appellant/Insurance Company (Annexure-2 to the appeal) in favour of the insured, submits that an amount of Rs. 410/- was received from the insured in respect of 'LML Vespa' bearing registration No. MZ-01A/3482. No amount for extra premium was paid by the insured. It was and 'Act Policy only' without any coverage for third party or the pillion rider. 8. The deceased was a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle i.e. the scooter and there was no insurance covering the liability of the petition rider. According to him, unless extra premium is paid covering the liability of pillion rider, the insurance company cannot be made liable for any compensation for the death of such passenger. In support of his submissions, he relies on United India Insurance Company Ltd. Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404 , wherein it has been held that an insurance policy under Section 147 of the MV Act does no cover the risk of death or injury to gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle. 9. Mr. Guite, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant, submits that there is no dispute in regard to the aforesaid proposition of law settled by the Apex Court. The Court is to find out and come to a conclusion whether the insurance policy in question, is an Act Policy only or a contractual policy. If it is contractual, liability of insurer, according to Mr. Guite, learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent, extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance and the insured has to pay additional premium for additional risk covering the death or injury to a gratuitous passenger or pillion ride. To ascertain this fact, he also refers to the insurance policy. Mr. Guite has laid emphasis on column "passenger including driver", which is recorded as "1+1 : 2" against premium of Rs. 410/- (inclusive of Rs. 20/-). According to him, "1 + 1 : 2" means the owner driver and a pillion rider and Rs. To ascertain this fact, he also refers to the insurance policy. Mr. Guite has laid emphasis on column "passenger including driver", which is recorded as "1+1 : 2" against premium of Rs. 410/- (inclusive of Rs. 20/-). According to him, "1 + 1 : 2" means the owner driver and a pillion rider and Rs. 20/- was paid as additional amount for coverage of pillion rider. The extra premium as required, being paid by the insured, the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount for the death of the deceased pillion ride. 10. On hearing the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that there is no dispute as regard the legality of the claims made by the claimant being the uncle the adopted-father of the deceased and also the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation for the death of a pillion ride, provided extra premium is paid on that account. The only question, which is required to be decided, is whether, in fact, the insured/owner of the vehicle (scooter) paid the extra premium for coverage of the death or injury to the pillion rider. A copy of the proposal for insurance policy with terms and conditions and the policy certificate issued by the appellant/insurance company have been found in the records of the case. I have carefully perused the same. The proposal is titled as "A" Policy for Act Liability, and the certificate of insurance has also been titled as "Long Terms Act only Policy". It is not even mentioned in the policy certificate that there is a comprehensive insurance of the vehicle. There is no mention in the insurance certificate whether payment of higher premium for comprehensive insurance has been made. Even assuming that the insurance policy is a comprehensive insurance of the vehicle, it would not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk would become unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under Section147(2)(b) of the MV Act, 1988. It has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 719 , that for this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the Insurance Company in this behalf. reported in AIR 1988 SC 719 , that for this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the Insurance Company in this behalf. Likewise, if risk of any other nature, for instance, with regard to the driver or passengers etc. in excess of the statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered, it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid thereof. This is the requirement of the Tariff Regulation framed for the purpose. There must be endorsement on the insurance policy itself so as to inform clearly the payment of additional premium has been paid for the said purpose. No such endorsement could be found on the policy certificate produced by the party concerned. 11. The owner of the scooter was not examined by the claimant as a witness to testify or prove the fact that the extra premium was paid as per the requirement of the Tariff Regulation. The owner of the scooter was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the claims petition. He filed a written statement before the learned Tribunal. In the said written statement, there is no mention about any extra premium paid by the claimant covering the risk of gratuitous passengers and/or pillion rider. It is only stated therein that the scooter was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the same was valid at the time of accident. 12. It is not proved by any oral or documentary evidence that the extra premium as required under the Tariff Regulation was paid by the owner of the scooter i.e. insured for covering the liability on the death or bodily injury of the pillion rider. In the case of Tilak Singh, (supra) the owner of the scooter insured his scooter with the appellant-company for a particular period covering the liability of pillion passenger but did not contain an endorsement of IMT 70. In such situation, the Apex Court held in para 21, as under: 21. In our view, although the observation made in Asha Rani Case were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. In such situation, the Apex Court held in para 21, as under: 21. In our view, although the observation made in Asha Rani Case were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh, who was a pillion rider, a the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger. 13. The facts and circumstances of the present case is almost similar to the Tilak Singh's, case (supra) and in my considered view, the decision rendered therein fully covers the present case. In another case namely, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 , the same issued was discussed and decided. That was a case of an accident and the death of the driver of motor cycle, who was the son of the insured/owner of the motor cycle. It was held by the Apex Court that the deceased driver/son of the insured/owner of the motorcycle is not a third party; he is rather a gratuitous passenger. It was also held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as there was and Act Policy only in respect of the motor cycle concerned and no additional premium was paid covering the additional risk. The Apex Court discussed the core issue in para 13 and 14 of the judgment and dealt with provisions under the MV Act in regard to statutory and contractual insurance, which are quoted below: 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 the vehicle fulfills his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either covered by the policy of insurance. By taking an "Act Policy" the owner of the vehicle fulfills 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 the risk of not only a third part but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. It 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 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 fixed the norms and the guidelines. 14. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and on consideration of the mater in the light of the decisions so far rendered by the a Apex Court in the above cited case, I have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that the appellant/insurance company has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1 and allowing the appeal. 15. The appeal thus stands allowed. 16. No order as to costs. The registry shall send down the case records to the learned Tribunal forthwith.