JUDGMENT : Can an Insurance Company be directed to pay compensation to a gratuitous passenger in a vehicle covered by a statutory policy is the point that emanates for consideration in the appeal. 2. The relevant background facts for the determination of the appeal are as follows:- 2.1. The appellant (Insurance Company) was the second respondent in OP (MV) 235/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The first respondent was the claimant and the second respondent (driver) was the first respondent in the claim petition. The parties are, wherever the context so requires, referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2.2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’), claiming compensation on account of the injuries that she allegedly sustained in an accident that occurred on 11.12.2013. The petitioner while travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-08-F-1761 (vehicle), driven by the first respondent, through the Irinjalakuda ?Thrissur road, when the vehicle reached Madrassa Poochinnipadam, the first respondent recklessly swerved the vehicle and it hit against a compound wall. The petitioner sustained serious injuries. She was admitted and treated at the Sun Medical and Research Centre, Thrissur. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent. The second respondent is the insurance company. The petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-from the respondents 1 and 2. 2.3. The first respondent did not contest the proceeding. 2.4. The second respondent filed a written statement contending that the insurance policy was only a ‘Limited Liability Policy’. As the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a private vehicle, she was not covered by the policy. The second respondent was not informed about the accident and the records of the vehicle were not produced for verification. Hence the claim petition be dismissed. 2.5. The petitioner marked Exhibits A-1 to A-8 in evidence. The second respondent marked Ext B1 ? copy of the insurance policy ? in evidence. 2.6. The Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by ordering the second respondent to pay the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,34,780/-with interest @ 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. 2.7. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the second respondent is in appeal. 3. in evidence. 2.6. The Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by ordering the second respondent to pay the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,34,780/-with interest @ 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. 2.7. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the second respondent is in appeal. 3. Heard Sri.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.R Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and contended that under a ‘Limited Liability Policy/Act Policy/Statutory Policy’, unless additional premium is paid, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate person(s) falling outside the purview of Section 147 of the Act. Only when there is a violation/breach of the Policy conditions, the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation to the victim and then recover the amount from the insured as provided under Section 149 of the Act. According to him, in the present case, Exhibit B-1 is a ‘Limited Liability Policy’ and no additional premium was paid for carrying the first respondent, who was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the impugned award is patently erroneous. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd vs. Asha Rani and others [ 2003 (2) SCC 223 ] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and others [ 2006 (4) SCC 404 ] to fortify his contentions. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the Insurance Company be exonerated. 5. Sri. Rajan Kaliyath, the learned Counsel appearing for an Insurance Company in an appeal of similar nature, was also heard. He supported the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. M.Laxmi and others [ (2009) 17 SCC 301 ] and Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others [( 2018 (15) SCC 189 ] and contended that in both the above decisions the Honourable Supreme Court has followed the ratio in Asha Rani and Tilak Singh (supra). Ltd vs. M.Laxmi and others [ (2009) 17 SCC 301 ] and Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others [( 2018 (15) SCC 189 ] and contended that in both the above decisions the Honourable Supreme Court has followed the ratio in Asha Rani and Tilak Singh (supra). According to him, the above four precedents holds the field, that under an ‘Act Policy’ the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death or bodily injuries sustained to gratuitous passengers or pillion riders. 6. Per contra, Sri.A.R.Nimod, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent defended the impugned award and contended that in National Insurance Co Ltd vs. Saju P.Paul and Another [ 2013 (2) SCC 41 ] the Honourable Supreme Court has held that there is no embargo or prohibition in the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and recover it from the insured. He placed strong reliance on the decision in Manuara Khatun and others vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and others [ 2017 (4) SCC 796 ] and argued that the Honourable Supreme Court following Saju P.Paul (supra) had directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and recover the same from the insured. Finally, he placed reliance on Shamanna and another vs. the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd and others [ 2018 (4) KLT 367 ] and submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court following the decisions in National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Swaran Singh and others [ (2004) 3 SCC 297 ] and National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut [ (2007) 3 SCC 700 ], has held that the proper course to be adopted in matters of compensation is to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover it from the insured. The learned counsel argued that the law laid down in Asha Rani (supra) has got watered down over the years, by the pronouncements in Saju Paul and Manuara Khatun (supra) and, therefore, there is no wrong in directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle and that Exhibit B-1 is a ‘Statutory Policy/Act Policy’. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle and that Exhibit B-1 is a ‘Statutory Policy/Act Policy’. Admittedly, no additional premium was paid to cover liabilities over and above the statutory requirements under Section 147 of the Act, so as to cover the occupant of the vehicle. 8. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as follows: “147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability: -(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 motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a transport vehicle, except gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Provided that a policy shall not be required – (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee (a)engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b)(b)if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c)if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:— (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier”. (emphasis given) 9. Sub-Section (1) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads thus: “149. (emphasis given) 9. Sub-Section (1) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads thus: “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.— (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (l) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) 1[or under the provisions of section 163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (emphasis given) 10. A three Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd vs. Asha Rani and others (supra), interpreting Section 147 of the Act, in paragraphs 27 to 29 held as follows: 27. 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 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. 28. Keeping in view the provisions of 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. 28. Furthermore, sub cls (i) of Cl.(b) of sub-s.(1) of S.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 cl.(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. 29. An owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this Court's decision in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and others (JT 1999 (9) SC 416) is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy where for even no premium is required to be paid”. 11. Again in paragraph 21 in United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and others (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: “ 21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani case 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 a gratuitous passenger.” (emphasis given) 12. In United India Insurance Co. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. M Laxmi and others (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has reiterated the position that in an ‘Act Policy’, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount in the case of injuries sustained by a pillion rider. The same view has been taken in Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others (supra) in respect of occupants/gratuitous passengers in a passenger car. 13. On a careful analysis of the decision in National Insurance Co Ltd vs. Saju P.Paul and Another (supra) it is seen that the Honourable Supreme Court has, without referring to Sections 147 and 149 of the Act or Asha Rani and Tilak Singh, in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and recover the amount from the insured. 14. Following Saju Paul (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun and others vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and others (supra) also in the peculiar facts of the above cases, de-hors the fact that the victims were gratuitous passengers, directed the Insurance Companies to pay the compensation to the dependents of the deceased and then recover the amount from the insured. 15. In Shamanna and another vs. the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd and others (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court relying on its earlier decisions in Swaran Singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover it from the insured. However, these decisions were rendered in cases falling within the sweep of Section 149 of the Act ? cases involving violation of policy conditions. Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable to present case. 16. The power of Honourable Supreme Court to direct an Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and recover the amount from the insured, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, was doubted and referred to a larger Bench in National Insurance Co Ltd vs. Parvathneni and another [ (2009) 8 SCC 785 ]. However, by order dated 17.9.2013, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the reference has been kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. However, by order dated 17.9.2013, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the reference has been kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. Again in National Insurance Company vs. Roshan Lal and another [ (2017) 4 SCC 803 ] the question has been placed before a larger Bench. 17. On an overall re-appreciation of the facts, Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and the aforecited precedents, I am of the definite opinion that the law laid by the three Judge Bench in Asha Rani, and Tilak Singh, that a ‘Statutory Policy’ only covers death or bodily injury of a third party falling within the sweep of Section 147 of the Act, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, as additional premium was admittedly not paid to cover the first respondent, I have no hesitation to hold that the first respondent was a gratuitous passenger and was not covered by Exhibit B-1 policy. Hence, the impugned award directing the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award directing the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent/petitioner is set aside. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.