H.K. Sema, J. — This appeal is directed against the award passed in MACT Case No. 4 of 1992 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimpuron 16.11.92. 2. On 25.2 92, deceased had travelled in the vehicle bearing registration No. NLZ 1678 (Tata) from Tzutapela Police Gate to his village Chungtia-yimsen. At about 7 PM the deceased reached to his village and he asked the driver to stop the vehicle for alighting. On being asked the vehicle stopped and the deceased started alighting from the right side of the vehicle and while the deceased was so alighting and was about to reach the ground, the vehicle started running fast forward and speeded away leaving the deceased fatally hit and ran over by the back tyre of the right side of the vehicle. In the process, the deceased was fatally injured and was succumbed to his injuries. 3. The Tribunal, after examining the witnesses had come to the conclu­sion that the accident was occasioned due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver. Therefore, the Tribunal had held that the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable. The Tribunal further directed the appellant, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the awarded amount to the claimants. Being aggrieved, the appellant, the Insurance Co. Ltd. preferred this appeal. 4.We have heard Mr. Devnath, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Tali, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 5. While awarding the award, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court Tendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satyanath Hazarika & others AIR 1990 Gauhati 26 [1989 (2) GLJ 1]. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the question to be determined is, whether the insurer is liable to indemnify an insured who has been liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger. 7. It is contended by the appellant that the insurance company is not liable, where as the case of the respondents/claimants is that the insurance company is liable. 8. The Tariff Advisory Committee by its instruction dated 13.3.78 require insurance company to incorporate in appropriate policies of clause covering risk : "Death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carrid in the motorcar provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward." 9. 8. The Tariff Advisory Committee by its instruction dated 13.3.78 require insurance company to incorporate in appropriate policies of clause covering risk : "Death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carrid in the motorcar provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward." 9. The Committee further directed that all existing policies should be deemed to incorporate this amendment automatically and that instruction would take effect from 25.3.1977. 10. In Puspabai vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company, AIR 1977 SC 1735 , it has been held that : "It is open to an insured to take that is called a comprehensive policy to cover risk higher than or beyond the requirements of law. The use of the word 'comprehensive' in a policy cannot mean that the policy covers all risks. Cover of any particular risk is determined by the contract between the owner of the car, that is, the insured and the insurer and payment of premium." 11. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1988 SC 719 , The accident had taken place in 1969. The policy in that case was 'Commer­cial Vehicle Comprehensive'. The Apex Court observed : "Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act. For this purpose specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the insurance company in this behalf. Like wise, if risk of any other nature, f>r instance with regard to the driver or passengers etc, in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefor." 12. In Skandia Insurance Co. Like wise, if risk of any other nature, f>r instance with regard to the driver or passengers etc, in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefor." 12. In Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben, AIR 1987 SC 1184 , it it has been observed by the Apex Court that : "When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress and misery of the victims of accidents or their dependants on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will reduce the profitabi­lity of the insurer in regard to the occupational hazard undertaken by him by way of business activity, there is hardly any choice, the Court cannot but opt for the former view." , 13. A full Bench of five Judges of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satyanath Hazarika, AIR 1990 Gauhati 26 [1989 (2) GLJ 1] after adverting to the various decisions of the Apex Court had observed : "After the decision in Puspabai there is no scope to argue that under an •Act only' policy the insurer is liable to indemnify the insurer for the compensation payable to the latter incase of death or bodily injury to the passenger who is not carried for hire or reward. Of course a particular policy may travel beyond the limit of section 95 cover cases of gratuitous passengers also." 14. The Court further observed that: "In recent private car comprehensive policies a provision has been made for compensation arising out of accidents to unnamed passenger other than the insured and his paid driver or cleaner for which some additional premium is charged." (emphasis supplied). The Court held in para 17 of its judgment "We are therefore of the view that the statutory instruction of the Tariff Advisory Committee noted above would apply to all those cases which are pending before the Claims Tribunal or before the appellate authorities since 25th March, 1977." 15. The Court further held in para 18 of its judgment : "That, an insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured in respect of compensation awarded against him for the death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in all those cases which are pending before the Claims Tribunal or appellate authorities since 25th March, 1977. The Court further held in para 18 of its judgment : "That, an insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured in respect of compensation awarded against him for the death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in all those cases which are pending before the Claims Tribunal or appellate authorities since 25th March, 1977. In other cases the insurer would be iiable In cases of the present nature if the particular policy covered the risk, and it shall be the burden of the insurer to satisfy by producing the policy that such a risk was not covered by the policy if that was its case before the Claims Tribunal " (emphasis supplied) 16. The necessary corollary of the aforesaid decision is that, the instruction of the Tariff Advisory Committee regarding deemed retrospective incorporation of the instruction wef 25.3.1977 was intended to cover existing policies and claims pending on that day even though no extra premium had been paid. So far future policies are concerned the risk are covered only if the insured pays the appropriate premium. In other words, if extra premium has not been paid fora policy obtained after 25.3.1977, the risk in respect of gratuitous passenger cannot be taken to have been covered. The burden that such a risk was not covered by the policy is on the insurer. 17. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court as well as by the full Bench decision of this Court, let us now examine the policy annexed in this petition. The policy covered is commercial vehicle goods carrying B policy. The heading of section 2 is liability to third parties, and reads : "1. Subject to the Limits of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle." 18. The policy taken is comprehensive premium (A+B). Additional premium of Rs. 75 has been paid under the heading UTP (unnamed travel passengers). (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle." 18. The policy taken is comprehensive premium (A+B). Additional premium of Rs. 75 has been paid under the heading UTP (unnamed travel passengers). Therefore, the policy in the instant case cover the risk of death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger. 19. Mr. Devnath strenuously urged that the insurer is not liable and heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Rashbihari Prasad & others vs. Smti Parbati Kedia & others (1993) 1 GLR 277 [1993 (1) GLJ 265). The Division Bench of this Court in which one of us is a party (Shishak, J) had held in para 13 : "The particulars in the policy show that additional premium has not been paid for coverage of risk to passengers. It must therefore be held that the contract of insurance between the insured and the insurer in this case does not cover risk of death or injury to gratuitous passengers travelling in the car. We therefore hold that insurer is not liable." 20. This is not the case in the present case. We have already hold that the policy shows the additional premium of Rs. 75 has been paid covering the risk of UTP . Therefore, the ratio of decision relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is of no help to the appellant's case. 21. Another contention of Mr. Devnath deserve disposal. It is contended by Mr. Devnath that the insurer is not liable because the insured vehicle is a goods vehicle and it is forbidden to carry any person other than the driver and bonafide employee of the vehicle or the hirer of the vehicle, under Rule 105 of Assam Motor Vehicle Rules, 1940. According to the counsel, the deceased was carried in a goods vehicle on a fateful day in contravention of Rule 105. In our opinion, this contention of the appellant is not sustainable, because the contract taken between the insured and the insurer would cover the risk of gratuitous passenger and even if assuming that there is contra­vention of Rule 105 of the Rules there is no evidence to show that the said rule was contravened by the insured. 22. The other grounds taken in this appeal petition is not pressed by the counsel at the time of hearing. 23. 22. The other grounds taken in this appeal petition is not pressed by the counsel at the time of hearing. 23. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal petition and the same is dismissed. Parties are asked to hear their respective costs.