An Act-only motor policy does not cover a gratuitous pillion rider without additional premium.

The appellants, parents of deceased Deep Chakraborty, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for his death in a road accident on 29.06.2019 at Natunnagar, Agartala–Airport Road. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle/vehicle No. TR-01-Z-6714, which allegedly collided with a tree while being driven rashly and negligently. He sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died at AGMC & GBP Hospital. The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Company Ltd.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable, holding that the deceased’s legal heirs were not entitled to compensation. The parents challenged that decision before the High Court.

The insurance policy marked Exhibit ‘C’ was found to be an Act/Liability Policy. It provided compulsory personal accident coverage for the owner-driver but did not contain any additional coverage or premium for a pillion rider or other occupant.

Whether the deceased pillion rider was covered under the Act/Liability insurance policy issued for the offending two-wheeler, in the absence of any additional premium or contractual coverage?

Whether the appellants were entitled to claim compensation from the insurer under the statutory third-party coverage applicable under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Whether the doctrine of “pay and recover” could be applied against the insurer in the circumstances of the case?

The Court applied Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which require compulsory insurance against statutorily prescribed third-party risks but do not, by themselves, require coverage for a gratuitous pillion rider on a private two-wheeler. The insurer’s liability is determined by the terms of the policy, and wider coverage may be obtained contractually by payment of an additional premium

Relying on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V., (2008) 7 SCC 428, the Court held that a pillion rider is not covered under an Act-only policy unless the requisite additional premium is paid. The same principle was supported by Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 404, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagammal, 2009 (1) CTC 2, which recognise that an insurer is liable only to the extent required by statute or expressly undertaken under the policy, and that “pay and recover” is not automatic where the insurer has no initial liability.

The Court also relied on Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2017 Legal Eagle (SC) 123, and Kaminiben v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174, as cited by the appellants, but found them inapplicable on the facts

The Court examined Exhibit ‘C’ and found that it was only an Act/Liability Policy. The policy specifically provided personal accident coverage for the owner-driver up to ₹15,00,000 but contained no endorsement or additional premium covering the pillion rider.

The insurer’s witness testified that the policy did not cover the liability of an occupant or pillion rider, and that evidence was not effectively rebutted by the claimants.

Applying the rule in Sudhakaran K.V. and Tilak Singh, the Court held that the deceased was a gratuitous pillion passenger and was outside the compulsory coverage under Section 147. The Court further observed that no adverse finding fixing the liability of the owner or driver had been recorded, and therefore the insurer could not be directed to pay first and recover later. The “pay and recover” doctrine could not create liability where the insurance contract and statute imposed none.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s decision was affirmed. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of, and the lower-court records were directed to be sent back.