Judgment : 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the finding rendered by the Tribunal in fixing the liability on them for paying the compensation amount indemnifying the owner of the vehicle second respondent herein, in and by award dated 20.11.2012 in MCOP No.664 of 2009. 2. The brief facts in this appeal are as follows:- The first respondent is the claimant before the Tribunal. It is the case of the first respondent that on 20.4.2009, while he was travelling in a TVS Centra Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-29-M-8350 as a pillion rider driven by one Venkatesh, the said vehicle met with an accident and in the said accident, the first respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence he made a claim, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation as against the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer of the vehicle, the appellant herein. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company had taken a defence stating that the owner of the vehicle was covered only by an Act policy and that there is no coverage for the risk of the pillion rider travelling in the vehicle. Hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 3. In order to prove this defence on the side of the Insurance Company, an Assistant from the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1. The Insurance Policy was marked as Exhibit R-1. In spite of the same, the Tribunal has negatived the defence put forth by the appellant by relying upon a judgment reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 297 {Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Ltd vs. R.Selvaraj and others} on a finding that though the insurance company has filed the policy copy, it has failed to file the proposal form submitted by the owner of vehicle to the insurance company as a document. 4. Assailing the said finding, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the policy copy was marked by the insurance company to show that the owner of the vehicle had taken only an Act policy, there is no need for filing a proposal form. In this regard, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgments reported in 2008 (4) Supreme 329 {Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sudhakaran K.V. And Others}, 2006 ACJ 1441 {United India Insurance Co. In this regard, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgments reported in 2008 (4) Supreme 329 {Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sudhakaran K.V. And Others}, 2006 ACJ 1441 {United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Tilak Singh and Others} and 2009 ACJ 104 {General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. M.Laxmi and Others}. 5. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2009 ACJ 104 (cited supra), it has been held as follows:- “4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has misread the circular of the Tariff Advisory Committee dated 2.6.1986. The same referred to compensation payable to pillion riders in the case of comprehensive policy. The clarification/circular has no relevance so far as Act policy cases are concerned and it related to only comprehensive policy. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court. 6. There is no dispute that the circular dated 2.6.1986 refers to comprehensive policy. It categorically states that standard form for motor cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers in case of comprehensive policy. As noted by the M.A.C.T., the policy in the instant case was an Act policy. 7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), it has been noted as follows: “(25) Section 147 of 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a 'goods carriage'. (26) In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis-a-vis 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words 'any person' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used, i.e., 'a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. (27) Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle 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.” 6. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2006 ACJ 1441 (cited supra), it has been held as follows:- “21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 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 policy and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger.” 7. The dictum laid down therein applies to the facts of the present case, as the policy marked on the side of the appellant shows that it is only an Act policy, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from paying the compensation, but the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that since the proposal form is not filed along with the insurance policy copy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The said finding is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said finding is set aside and consequently, the appellant is exonerated from paying the compensation amount. 8. The said finding is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said finding is set aside and consequently, the appellant is exonerated from paying the compensation amount. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the first respondent has to work out his remedy only as against the owner of the vehicle to recover the compensation amount. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.