JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This case was taken up for hearing after lunch as, in the first session, the case was called out and Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel was present all throughout on behalf of the appellant but none put his appearance on behalf of the respondents. In the post lunch session too, there is no representation on behalf of the claimants whereas Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate is again present. So, the Court has heard the arguments. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, it transpires that on the day of accident, deceased Mr. Durvendra Kumar was a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No.UA06C/2557, which became uncontrolled while being driven by Mr. Rajendra Singh and thus, it fell down resulting into causing injuries to Mr. Durvendra Kumar but later, he succumbed to those injuries. 3. When the claimants (dependants) filed this petition, Mr. Rajendra Singh (owner/driver) although turned up in the Court and the copies were served on him but he did not file his Written Statement and absented himself for all the upcoming dates fixed during the course of hearing. 4. Application was moved by the claimants to implead the Oriental Insurance Company some time during the course of trial, which was allowed. The Company accordingly, filed its written statement, wherein it was pleaded that this petition had been filed in collusion with the motorcycle owner. 5. The judgment, under challenge, evidently reveals that none could be examined by the claimants who witnessed the alleged incident. PW1 Smt. Vidhya Rani, PW2 Tara Chand and PW3 Nand Kishore in their deposition have refused to have seen any accident. Learned Tribunal has based its findings on some General Diary of the police station wherein the accident was recorded but even in that document, number of vehicle was not mentioned. So, it cannot be inferred that the deceased lost his life on account of accident with this motorcycle. 6. That apart, even if it is accepted for a moment that the deceased succumbed to his injuries on account of the accident with this motorcycle, then there is no evidence, at all, to show that this vehicle collided with any other vehicle. So, it cannot be termed as a third party accident. All the more, the deceased cannot be categorized as third party because he himself was a pillion rider on such bike. So, it cannot be termed as a third party accident. All the more, the deceased cannot be categorized as third party because he himself was a pillion rider on such bike. This view has been fortified even by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V. & others’ 2008 (71) ALR 770, wherein it was held that a pillion rider cannot be treated as third party when the accident takes place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle. 7. Here, in the present controversy, it has nowhere been mentioned that the accident took place on account of colliding with another vehicle. In addition thereto, it cannot be put out of consideration that the motorcycle owner/driver Rajendra Singh absented himself without even producing his driving licence. So, the Tribunal was constrained to hold that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at all. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is quite appalling as to how the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion of awarding compensation by allowing such frivolous petition of the claimants. 9. All told, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2009 is hereby set aside. 10. It appears that in compliance of the order dated 10.8.2009, entire awarded amount has been deposited by the appellant before the concerned Tribunal, out of which, 50 percent has been released in favour of the claimants vide order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 11. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is directed to return the amount lying deposited with it, along with 3 (three) percent compound interest thereon, to the appellant since the date such amount was deposited till it is actually paid. 12. Remaining amount which has been released in favour of the claimants shall be recoverable at the instance of the insurance company, if an appropriate application is moved to that effect. 13. The amount lying in this Court in the form of statutory deposit be also remitted to the concerned Tribunal for being returned to the appellant. 14. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the L.C.R. be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for compliance of the order.