BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 6th May, 2008, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track, No.2) Tonk, dismissed the claim of the appellant Roshan lal. 2. For the decision of the instant appeal, the necessary facts of the case in brief are that on 19th May, 2002, at about 9:30 pm, when the appellant Roshan lal, Laxmi Narayan and Meetha lal were standing at Vanasthali Mod. One motor-cyclist riding the motor-cycle No. RJ-14-10M-6218 rashly and negligently suddenly emerged at a fast speed and collided with them and further knocked against the tractor resulting into injuries on their person. One FIR of this case came to be lodged at police station Niwai. The S.H.O., police station Niwai, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet and sent Jameel, who happened to be the driver of the tractor, to trial. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award, it is revealed that the injured appellant was in fact, not standing at the Vanasthali Mod, but was a pillion rider on the motor-cycle No. RJ-14-10M-6218 entailed in the accident. It emerged during trial that there were four persons, who were riding on the motor-cycle. One Shankar Dayal, who was riding the motor-cycle, succumbed to injuries and rest of three pillion riders namely Roshan lal, Laxmi Narayan and Meetha lal sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal is found to have dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on the ground that the owner of the motor-cycle had not paid any premium for the pillion riders. To substantiate the finding, the Tribunal relied upon the judgments of Apex Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Tilak Singh reported in MACD 2006(1) MC 481 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ummed Singh reported in MACD 2008(1) MP 232. 4. It is an admitted fact that the owner of the motor-cycle had not paid any premium to the Insurance Company for the pillion riders. It is categorically held by the Apex Court that if no premium is paid for the pillion riders, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation to them even in the event of death or injury. Otherwise too, the contradictions and the discrepancies are also found to have been emerged in galore. It is categorically held by the Apex Court that if no premium is paid for the pillion riders, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation to them even in the event of death or injury. Otherwise too, the contradictions and the discrepancies are also found to have been emerged in galore. The learned Tribunal is found to have discussed and analyzed the evidence of the witnesses ad longum and arrived at a finding that the appellant did not sustain any injury in the said accident. The impugned judgment and award is found to be just and apposite and suffers from no infirmity. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for the appellant also has utterly failed to convince me to take a contrary view to that of the view taken by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stand dismissed.