ORDER Seth J. 1. This appeal is by the claimant. As against an exorbitant sum claimed, the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.1,17,400/- payable in 50% contributory negligence by each tort-feasors i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2 on the one hand and respondents No. 3 to 5 on the other. Claimant has placed reliance on a Full- Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila Bhadoria v. M.P.S.R.T.C. reported in 2005 (I) JLJ 15 = 2005 (1) MPLJ 372 on the point of apportionment of liability between joint tort-feasors. 2. At the stage of arguments before us, the only point pressed into service was to hold the Insurance Company liable for the entire amount of compensation and not 50% thereof as awarded. Since it was not seriously urged that the compensation awarded was inadequate, this point needs no further attention. 3. The case of appellant before the Tribunal was that on 7.8.2001 while he was returning from a temple as pillion rider on a scooter, driven by Resp. 3 Sunil, enroute, the scooter met with an accident. There was collision with a motor-cycle driven by (Resp. No. 1) Pradeep and owned by (Resp. No. 2) Dilip. And for this accident said Sunil was entirely responsible. Admittedly, the registered owner of the scooter was the father of the claimant himself and he (father) being dead, his widow (Resp. No. 4) is impleaded (apparently in the fond hope that she would be held liable and her liability would be passed on to the insurer (Resp.No. 5) of the scooter, (She seems to be mother of the appellant). There is no pleading that Sunil was driving the scooter in course of employment or, for and on behalf of the owner. Before the Tribunal, the appellant did not plead nor was it proved that it was case of contributory negligence. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their joint cross objection challenged the impugned Award so far it directs them to make payment of 50% compensation. Respondent No. 5 has also challenged the Award and the contributory liability to pay 50% of the Award in a separate cross objection contending that it was not at all liable to pay compensation under the Act only Policy. 5. Following facts are at this stage undisputed. On 7.8.2001 appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter. Respondent No. 5 has also challenged the Award and the contributory liability to pay 50% of the Award in a separate cross objection contending that it was not at all liable to pay compensation under the Act only Policy. 5. Following facts are at this stage undisputed. On 7.8.2001 appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter. It was driven by Sunil (respondent No.3) and it belonged to father of the appellant. The scooter undisputedly, was, insured with respondent No. 5 Insurance Company under the Act Policy only. 6. Before the tribunal, it was the case of appellant that on account of rash and negligent driving of scooter by Sunil, scooter collided with a motor-cycle coming from the opposite direction in a public place. Consequently, appellant sustained personal injuries as pillion rider on the scooter and claimed compensation from respondents jointly and severally. Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,17,400/- as mentioned above and apportioned the liability between two tort-feasors. 7. It is not disputed that at the time of accident, motor cycle belonged to respondent No.2 (Dilip) and was being driven by respondent 1 (Pradeep) and there was no insurance covering the risk of a third party. 8. It is interesting to note that scooter belonged to father of the appellant and who (father) died before filing of the claim petition; therefore, he (father) was impleaded through his widow as respondent No.4 in the claim petition. 9. Record shows that initially FIR was lodged against Sunil for offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. We have mentioned this fact because during argument much ado was made that FIR was lodged by Sunil against Pradeep therefore Tribunal erred in apportioning the liability. We do not find any merit and substance in the submission. Record shows that first FIR was lodged by Pradeep against Sunil and as a counter- blast; Sunil lodged the subsequent FIR against Pradeep (respondent No.1). Except that both Sunil and Pradeep were prosecuted there is no other material available on record to show how Pradeep was responsible for the accident. 10. We now, come to the most important and contentious issue involved in this appeal, i.e. could an insurance company be held liable to pay compensation for injuries to a claimant when he was travelling on a scooter as a pillion rider at the time of the accident? 11. 10. We now, come to the most important and contentious issue involved in this appeal, i.e. could an insurance company be held liable to pay compensation for injuries to a claimant when he was travelling on a scooter as a pillion rider at the time of the accident? 11. After hearing arguments and considering the material available on record of the lower Court, in our considered opinion answer to the question must be answered in the negative. 12. The law on the point is no longer res-integra. After comparing and contrasting the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with that of the repealed Act of 1939, it is held in United India insurance v. Tikal Singh reported in AIR 2006 SC 1576 that an Act only policy of Insurance does not cover the risk of a pillion rider on a two wheeler. Same view has been reiterated in subsequent decision New India Assurance v. Sadanad Mukhi reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 wherein their Lordships’ pointed out the distinction between a statutory and contractual insurance and the nature and extent of liability. In another decision-United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi reported in AIR 2009 SC 626 it was held that a pillion rider is not third party qua the insurance company under an Act policy. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation in allowing the cross objection filed by the Insurance Company and absolve the Insurance Company from payment of any compensation whatsoever to the appellant. The direction and the Award of the Tribunal qua the Insurance Company are therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 13. We now come to the cross objection filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 challenging their liability to pay 50% compensation for contributory negligence. After hearing arguments and going through the material available on record of the Tribunal, we find that in the claim petition claimant has nowhere said or pleaded that the driver of the motor-cycle was in any manner responsible for causing the accident. No issue was framed on the point. The pleadings and evidence in this regard are that the accident was caused by Sunil (respondent No. 3) on account of his rash and negligent driving of the scooter. No issue was framed on the point. The pleadings and evidence in this regard are that the accident was caused by Sunil (respondent No. 3) on account of his rash and negligent driving of the scooter. Tribunal, without considering this aspect of the matter, made out a new case neither pleaded nor proved by the claimant and held respondents No. 1 and 2 liable to the extent of 50%. Tribunal, it seems, totally forget that it was not doling out largess and it was bound by basic rules, (not the technical or strict rule) of the pleading and evidence. In view of this glaring mistake of the tribunal, the impugned Award against respondents No. 1 and 2 is also not sustainable and to that extent the cross objection filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 14. In view of the above discussion, question of liability of respondents No. 1 2 and 5 does not arise and they cannot be ordered to pay compensation to appellant. It is only the respondent No. 3 who is liable to pay entire amount of compensation to the appellant. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to discuss the decision of the Full-Bench supra in detail. 15. Before parting with the appeal, we must dispose of I.A. No. 4237 of 13. This is an application filed on behalf Shri Tarun Kushwaha Advocate seeking permission to withdraw his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Record of appeal shows that Shri Kushwaha Advocate had earlier filed his Vakaltnama on behalf of appellant and later on he also filed the Vakaltnama for respondents No. 1 and 2. When this fact came to light at the time of hearing the application (IA No. 4232/13 is filed. After hearing submissions and considering the averments made in the application, we would like to give him the benefit of doubt, considering his junior standing at the Bar; he is let off with a serious warning that in future he should be more careful in this regard otherwise he may land up in trouble with grave consequences. We may mention that Shri Kushwaha appeared before us in Chamber and expressed deep regrets for his folly. In this view of the matter, we do not propose to take any further action. I.A. stands disposed of. 16. We may mention that Shri Kushwaha appeared before us in Chamber and expressed deep regrets for his folly. In this view of the matter, we do not propose to take any further action. I.A. stands disposed of. 16. In the result, cross objections filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent 5 are hereby allowed with costs throughout. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 are entitled to recover from the appellant the amount if any paid pursuant to the award of the Tribunal; since appellant is held entitled to recover entire amount of compensation from respondent No. 3 alone. Appeal stands disposed of and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Counsels fee Rs. 5,000/- each of the respondents No 1, 2 and 5. 17. Ordered accordingly.