Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud held that: “Therefore, a pillion rider is not covered under a statutory/Act-only policy and that the insurer is not liable for the death or bodily injury of a gratuitous pillion rider unless the risk is specifically covered under the policy upon payment of the requisite additional premium.”

Background

The appellants, parents of Deep Chakraborty, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, seeking compensation following the death of their son in a road accident on June 29, 2019. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler bearing registration No. TR-01-Z-6714, which allegedly crashed into a tree at Natunnagar on the Agartala-Airport Road. He sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to them at AGMC & GBP Hospital.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellants were not entitled to compensation. Aggrieved, they challenged the Tribunal's judgment before the Tripura High Court, contending, inter alia, that the insurance policy covered the pillion rider and that the insurer should be directed to pay and recover the compensation from the vehicle owner.

The Tripura High Court held that the insurance policy was an Act-only/Liability Policy and did not provide coverage to the deceased pillion rider. Since no additional premium had been paid to extend coverage to pillion riders, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation for his death.

The Court observed that a pillion rider on a two-wheeler is not covered under a statutory third-party policy unless the risk is specifically covered through additional premium. The Court further held that the 'pay and recover' principle could not be invoked, as the insurer had no liability under the policy and the Tribunal had not fixed liability on the owner or driver.

Accordingly, the High Court found no liability against the insurance company and dismissed the appeal.

Date of Decision: 07.09.2026