Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 6.4.2006 made in MCOP.No.190/2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Sankagiri, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,4,000/- as total compensation to the claimant/1st Respondent herein. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the 1st Respondent herein/claimant has filed the above said claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the death of her husband Palanisamy in the motor accident that took place on 16.6.2002 at 8.00 a.m., when he was travelling as a pillion rider in the Scooter bearing Reg.No.TN-28-V-0657, which was driven by one Nandakumar, the 3rd Respondent herein and the said Scooter was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Scooter, awarded Rs.4,44,000/- as compensation to the claimant, who is the wife of the deceased. The Tribunal held that since the Scooter was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company and the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Scooter, though it is an Act Policy, the Appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the award. Though the Tribunal accepted the contention of the Insurance Company that the Policy was only an Act Policy, but however, directed the Insurance Company to deposit the award and recover the same from the owner of the Scooter. The Tribunal also awarded interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 3. Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company raised only one point that the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the policy issued to the owner and the Tribunal though found that it is an Act Policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, however erred in directing the Appellant to pay the amount and recover the same from the Insured. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Thilak Singh (2006-ACJ-1441-SC) the Honourable Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision reported in 2003-ACJ-1-SC (New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Asha Rani) and held in paragraph 21 has held as under:- "21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case (supra) 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, as the insurance policy was a statutory and hence, it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger." 7. If we look into the Insurance Policy Ex.R1 filed in this case, it would appear that it was an Act Policy and no extra premium has been paid for covering the risk of a pillion rider. 8. In yet another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR-2008-SC-2729 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sudhakaran K.V and others), it has been held that in case of Act Policy, the pillion rider cannot be treated as a third party and the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of the vehicle or the pillion rider. In view of the terms of the Policy in this case, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased, who was admittedly travelling as a pillion rider in the said Scooter and the Tribunal is right in holding that the Appellant Insurance Company will not be liable to pay compensation. 9. Now the question arises for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner, when it has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 9. Now the question arises for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner, when it has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant. The law is very clear that when the Insurance Company is not made liable, it cannot be directed to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the insured. 10. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent drew the attention of this court to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2004-ACJ-428-SC (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljit Kaur) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the insured. Reliance of the claimant has also been placed on yet another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008-ACJ-581-SC (Daddappa Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited) wherein after holding that the Insurance Company was not liable, the court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. In my view, the above said decisions are not applicable to the case on hand, because, the Honourable Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give those directions. 11. On the other hand, in 2008-ACJ-2144-SC (National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Kaushalaya Devi), the Honourable Supreme Court has set aside the direction given by the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. It specifically held that if the amount had not been withdrawn by the claimant, it would be refunded to the Insurance Company and the claimant would recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that only the owner can be held liable to pay the award amount and this court has no power to direct the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, especially, when it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the direction, directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and recover the same from insured, has to be set aside. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the direction, directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and recover the same from insured, has to be set aside. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the direction, directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and recover the same from insured is set aside. The Appellant Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited with interest. The claimant can recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle according to law. No costs.