JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the second respondent against the award in M.C.O.P.No.407 of 2005 dated 20.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No. IV), Bhavani, Erode District. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their original rank. 3. The case of the claimant was that after visiting his sister, he was travelling to his home in Bhavani Road in Bajaj CT 100 Motor Bike bearing Registration No.TN-36-H-9918 with one Mr.Perumal at about 12.30 hours on 25.10.2005. Mr.Perumal was driving the vehicle and the claimant was the pillion rider. To fuel the vehicle, after showing hand signal, when Mr.Perumal slowly turned right towards Karpagam Petrol Bunk, the ambulance van, owned by the second respondent, driven rash and negligently by the first respondent hit the bike in which the claimant was travelling, resulting in the death of Mr.Perumal on the spot and grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant claimed to be an agriculture labour and after the accident claimed that he has sustained permanent disability and he is unable to attend agricultural coolie works. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the second respondent remained exparte. 5. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit claiming that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Mr.Perumal and one Mr.Murugesan, the ambulance which was driven slowly and carefully was not involved in the accident, because of the accident between the two bikes, there was no room in the road and therefore he had to stop the vehicle by hitting the Indian Oil Corporation Board, the deceased Mr.Perumal and the claimant were drunk and therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The second respondent reiterating most of the contents of the first respondent regarding the accident and negligence, further pleaded that the claim was liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties as the Insurance Company of both the two wheelers were not shown as respondents and therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidences, awarded a sum of Rs.75,838/- with costs and interest @ 7.5 p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment as against the claim of Rs.2.50,000/-. Aggrieved with the same, the second respondent has filed this appeal. 8. 7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidences, awarded a sum of Rs.75,838/- with costs and interest @ 7.5 p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment as against the claim of Rs.2.50,000/-. Aggrieved with the same, the second respondent has filed this appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The second respondent has not appeared even before this Court. I have perused the original records of the Claims Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased Mr.Perumal and Mr. Murugesan and that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the owners of the two wheelers and their Insurance Companies were not impleaded as parties. The learned counsel further argued that since the claimant was only a pillion rider he was not entitled to any compensation and that the award is exorbitant. 10. In reply, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the ambulance van, there is no necessity to implead the owners of the two wheelers and their Insurance Companies. The learned counsel for the first respondent further contended that the finding in the award are based on material evidence and therefore does not warrant any interference. 11. Upon perusal of the award and the documents, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent driver in the appeal. After the accident he has abandoned the spot and ran away. No oral or documentary evidence were let in by the appellant to prove any of the contentions raised by them regarding negligence. 12. Regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties, let us first examine as to whether the owner of the two wheelers and their Insurance Companies were necessary parties to the claim petition. If the claim is against either of the drivers of the two wheelers, then the owners and the Insurance Company must have been made as parties. It is not the case here. The claim was filed against the appellant, who is the owner of the ambulance and the driver, who caused the accident. If the claim is against either of the drivers of the two wheelers, then the owners and the Insurance Company must have been made as parties. It is not the case here. The claim was filed against the appellant, who is the owner of the ambulance and the driver, who caused the accident. Hence I hold that the owners of the two wheelers and their Insurance Companies are not necessary parties. Hence the Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of the appellant. 13. The next question is whether the pillion rider is entitled for claiming compensation ? Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: "128. Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders.- (1) No driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor cycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate safety measures. (2) In addition to the safety measures mentioned in the sub-section (1), the Central Government may, prescribe other safety measures for the drivers of two-wheeled motor cycles and pillion riders thereon." A mere reading of Section 128 makes it clear that the law permits the drivers of the vehicle to carry a pillion rider. When a person is not bared from travelling in a vehicle and when no further conditions are required to be followed to carry a pillion rider, the person liable to pay compensation for the accident is liable towards a pillion rider also. Whether a person is a pillion rider or a driver is of no significance in awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as thus: "140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty five thousand rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force." As per the above Section, the owner is liable to pay compensation to the deceased or to any person who has sustained a permanent disability. 15. Section 145 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines liability under (c) reads as: "liability", wherever used in relation to the death of or bodily injury to any person, includes liability in respect thereof under Section 140." 16. 15. Section 145 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines liability under (c) reads as: "liability", wherever used in relation to the death of or bodily injury to any person, includes liability in respect thereof under Section 140." 16. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: "147(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 persons 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." 17. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as follows: "166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made - (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be;" 18. From the reading of the above Sections, it is clear that the claim petition can be filed by any person who has sustained the injury. All that matters is compensation must be claimed in respect of accident that has occurred arising out of use of motor vehicles. It is not necessary that the claimant must be the driver of the vehicle. All that matters is compensation must be claimed in respect of accident that has occurred arising out of use of motor vehicles. It is not necessary that the claimant must be the driver of the vehicle. The word "any person" would under the contest of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would mean any person travelling the vehicle involved in the accident and any person who suffered any injury as the result of the accident. Even a pedestrian or a by-stander who suffers any injury because of an accident caused by use of motor vehicles is entitled to compensation. The word "any person" in Sections 140, 145, and 147 1(b)(ii) would certainly include a pillion rider as well. In the absence of Insurance policy, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. In case of Government vehicles which are exempted from subscribing to insurance policies, the Government or the respective Department, which is the registered owner of the vehicle would be liable. Hence a pillion rider is also entitle for compensation. 19. In so far the amount of compensation awarded is concerned, upon perusal of the documents, I find no irregularity in the compensation awarded under various heads. Therefore no interference is called for. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.