JUDGMENT : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 21.12.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.914 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 18.10.2013 while the deceased was travelling as pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No.AP-25AN-4319 driven by her son and when they reached Dharmaram Village outskirts, some boulders were kept on the road, due to which the rider could not see the boulder and dashed against the boulder, as a result of which the deceased sustained head injury and while she was being shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, she succumbed to injuries. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further denied that the policy issued by their company does not cover the risk of pillion rider and that they are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether on 18.10.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., at Dharmaram Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No.AP-25-AN-4319 by its rider? 2. Whether Nadipolla Mallavva received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries ? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief ? 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard Smt. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard Smt. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident has not occurred due to any negligence on part of the driver of the insured vehicle and that the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation. It is further argued that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is against the law and weight of evidence. She further argued that even according to the claimants, the accident has occurred due to the negligent act of one Bachepally Ramulu who had placed some boulders to dry maize on the road, which has caused obstruction on the road and that there is no negligence of the bike rider. Thus, the learned counsel has prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Maxim of res-ipsa-loquitur applies to the case on hand and that since the accident occurred when the motor bike went and hit against the boulder, the rash and negligence of the motor bike itself is proved. Hence, a just compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and has prayed to uphold the same. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the risk of pillion rider is covered under the Insurance Policy issued to the motor bike bearing No.AP-25-AN-4319? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 13. Point No.1: a) The contention of appellant counsel is that the Policy does not cover the risk of pillion rider. A perusal of the Insurance Policy under Ex.B1 reveals that it covers the risk of owner-cum-driver and no premium was paid towards un-named passenger or pillion rider and a premium was collected for own damage i.e., for the vehicle damage, thus a total premium of Rs.11,026/- was collected. A perusal of the Insurance Policy under Ex.B1 reveals that it covers the risk of owner-cum-driver and no premium was paid towards un-named passenger or pillion rider and a premium was collected for own damage i.e., for the vehicle damage, thus a total premium of Rs.11,026/- was collected. Since, the premium was not paid to cover the risk of the pillion rider, and as elicited by the recitals of Ex.B1, the policy cannot be held to cover the risk of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that the son of the deceased was riding the bike and he is the owner of the bike. The bike is covered under the Act policy, which covers the risk of owner-cum-driver, but there is no liability towards pillion rider. b) In United India Insurance Company Limited., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others , [ (2006) 4 SCC 404 ] it was held as; “in our view, although the observation made in Asha Rani’s 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 toward 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. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants.” c) In the light of the above cited decision, and in view of the above held discussion, it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the Order and Decree dated 21.12.2013 need to be modified with regard to the aspect of liability. It is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, while it can be recovered from owner of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the motor bike bearing No.AP-25AN-4319 is alone liable to pay compensation. It is borne out by record that 50% of the decreetal amount was already deposited by the Insurance Company and withdrawn by the claimants. Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the motor bike bearing No.AP-25AN-4319 is alone liable to pay compensation. It is borne out by record that 50% of the decreetal amount was already deposited by the Insurance Company and withdrawn by the claimants. Thus, it is observed that the amount that is already deposited by the Insurance Company shall be recovered by it from the owner of the crime vehicle. The remaining amount shall be recovered by the petitioners from the owner i.e., respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is allowed, exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability while the owner/respondent No.1 is held liable to pay compensation. However, with regard to the amount of compensation that is already deposited by the Insurance Company, it shall recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.