JUDGMENT 1. - Claimant-respondents filed a claim-petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, District Sawai Madhopur, (for short the learned Tribunal), on account of the death of Shri Mohan Lal in a motor accident occurred on 21st November, 1993 involving Jeep No. RJU 7329. It is alleged that the driverof the Jeep (respondent No. 5) drove the Jeep rashly and negligently, and on account of which, it overturned and fell into a valley of Mehandipur Balaji. Mohan Lal sustained serious injuries, and he died. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of accident, and his income was stated to be Rs. 2,500/-p.m. After considering the evidence, material on record and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 87,200/- as the amount of compensation against the owner/appellant. It was held by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the Jeep, and, as such, the Insurance Company, respondent No.7, is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant-respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 21st September, -1996 of the learned Tribunal, the appellant-owner of the vehicle in question, has preferred this appeal for reducing the amount of compensation and making the Insurance Company, respondent No. 7 liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 2. At the time of arguments, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, only. Later on, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, Insurance Company, submitted the written arguments. 3. The deceased, Mohan Lal was travelling in the Jeep in question at the time of accident. According to Kesar (PW 1), the deceased paid Rs. 5/- as fare, but the driver, Raees Ahmed (DW 2) has stated that the deceased did not pay any fare. The certified copies of the testimony of witnesses were shown to me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The certified copy of the Insurance Policy (Ex. A-1) was also shown to me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Kesar (PW 1) has specifically stated that she was not present at the time the accident which took place. Therefore, her statement that the deceased paid Rs., 5/- as fare cannot be accepted. The certified copy of the Insurance Policy (Ex. A-1) was also shown to me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Kesar (PW 1) has specifically stated that she was not present at the time the accident which took place. Therefore, her statement that the deceased paid Rs., 5/- as fare cannot be accepted. Raees Ahmed (DW 2), driver of the Jeep has specifically stated that the deceased did not pay any fare. He was standing on the foot board behind the Jeep. A perusal of the Insurance Policy, Ex. A-l, would show that the vehicle was insured for the use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and for the Insureds own business. The policy did not cover the use for hire or reward. According to Raees Ahmed (DW 2), driver of the vehicle, in question, the Jeep was carrying rice for the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the Jeep, at the time of accident, was being used in connection with the work of the Insured himself. Merely because, rice for the owner of the vehicle was being carried in the Jeep, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being used as goods vehicle. In my opinion, the vehicle was used as a Jeep for the purposes of its owner, therefore, the Jeep was being used within the scope of the Insurance Policy, Ex. A-1. It cannot be said that the Jeep in question at the relevant time was being used for the purposes other than one mentioned in the certificate of Insurance, Ex. A- 1. 4. The Insurance Policy in question was "Act only" policy, and it was issued to cover third party risk only according to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. The question that arises is whether the deceased can be treated as a third party? Obviously, if he cannot be treated as a third party, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. If the deceased can be treated as a third party, then, of course, the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay the compensation under the Insurance Policy in question. 6. In the The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Patel Ratan Ben & others, 1993 DNJ (Raj.) 11 , a Single Bench of this Court has held that the "third party" does not cover the passenger of the vehicle. 6. In the The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Patel Ratan Ben & others, 1993 DNJ (Raj.) 11 , a Single Bench of this Court has held that the "third party" does not cover the passenger of the vehicle. According to this decision under the "third party risk" cover, the passenger of the vehicle is not covered under the Insurance Policy. But, a perusal of this decision would show that the case was with regard to the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and relating to interpretation of proviso (ii) to Section 95(1 )(b). According to this decision under the above proviso of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it was not required that a policy of insurance should cover the risk of passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. The learned Tribunal therefore, on the basis of this authority, held that since the deceased was a passenger in the Jeep not for hire or reward, therefore, the Insurance Company, respondent No. 7 i.e., not liable to pay compensation. 7. But, as stated above, this decision of the Honble High Court is with regard to the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and in the present case in hand, the accident took place in 1993 when the old Act was repealed and the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was in force. The corresponding provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is Section 147. A perusal of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would show that the provisions which were occurring in proviso (ii) to Section 95(1 )(b), of the old Act, stand omitted. Thus, the position has completely been changed when the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, came into force. In Section 147 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which corresponds to Section 95 of the old Act the old law in this regard has changed. The corresponding proviso in the old Act contained three clauses whereas now there are only two clauses. What was dropped in the new Act is the clause which exclude the coverage for death or bodily injury to persons carried in or upon the vehicle. This means that such liability cannot now be excluded from the policy. The corresponding proviso in the old Act contained three clauses whereas now there are only two clauses. What was dropped in the new Act is the clause which exclude the coverage for death or bodily injury to persons carried in or upon the vehicle. This means that such liability cannot now be excluded from the policy. The result is when a policy of insurance is an Act policy, it does not mean that the Insurance Company is absolved from the liability in respect of the person carried in or upon the vehicle. 8. Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the insurance of the motor vehicles against the third-party risk. Section 145 of the said Chapter is the definition section, it does not define a third party, as such, though in clause (g), it has been stated that the third-party includes the Government. Section 146 relates to the necessity for insurance against a third-party risk. It lays down that no person shall use, except as a passenger or cause to allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act. For the requirement under this Chapter, the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have to be looked at. Section 147 lays down that in order to comply with the requirement of this Chapter (Chapter XI), a policy of insurance must be a policy which, inter alia, is issued by an insurer and insures the person specified in the insurance policy (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the 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, (ii) 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. As may be seen in Section 147, the expression "third party" has not been defined thereunder as well. Then, what is the meaning of expression "third party"? Normally and ordinarily, a contract of insurance has two parties to it, the insurer and the insured. As may be seen in Section 147, the expression "third party" has not been defined thereunder as well. Then, what is the meaning of expression "third party"? Normally and ordinarily, a contract of insurance has two parties to it, the insurer and the insured. Contracting parties of the contract of insurance can be called as the first party and the second party. Therefore, any party other than the contracting party of the contract of insurance becomes and can be called as third party. The use of the words and expression "third party" clearly indicates that it refers to a party who is neither the first party nor the second party to a contract of the insurance. Therefore, the expression "third party" should include everyone be it a person travelling in vehicle itself or any other vehicle or one walking on the road. Under the "third party" Insurance Policy, the insurer undertakes to insure the insured and indemnify him against all the risks and in relation to all claims lodged against him by a third party. Narrowing the concept, scope and ambit of the expression under "third party" and consequently, excluding the passengers in the vehicle itself from the operation and purview would not only defeat the very purpose of taking out the insurance policy, but the very object of the Motor Vehicles Act, f988,' which makes it a mandatory requirement of law that all vehicles/owners of the vehicles must be compulsorily insured against third-party risks. 9. Section 147(1 )(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, directs that the Insurance Policy must insure the insured "against any liability which may be insured by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place." The terms "any person" used in the above provision would include every person who incur death caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle and the passenger in the vehicle is covered by the third-party risk. The proposition that the policy does not cover the liability in respect of a passenger including a gratuitous person, passenger travelling in the Jeep in question itself cannot be accepted because the statutory requirement of a policy under Section 147(l)(b)(i) is that the policy should insure against any liability which may be incurred by the owner in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. In the present case in hand, the accident took place in a public place and the deceased was a person who was carried or travelling in the jeep in question itself and he died in the accident arising out of the use of the Jeep itself. The Insurance Company under the Insurance Policy in question, is liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the liability incurred in respect of the death of the deceased in the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company, respondent No. 7 is liable to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal, in my opinion, committed an error by exonerating the Insurance Company, respondent No. 7 from the liability of paying the compensation. 10. Upon considering the oral submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the award of the learned Tribunal, I find myself broadly in agreement with the conclusions of the learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation. The reasons given by the learned Tribunal in support of its conclusion in this behalf are also approved. The findings and the conclusions of the learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation, do not seem to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. The conclusion of the learned Tribunal is that the accident in question took place on account of the rashly and negligently driving of the driver of the vehicle in question and there is no fault on the part of the deceased, also seems to be correct and no case has been made out for any interference in this regard. 11. No other point has been pressed and argued before me. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 7 is held liable to pay the award amount jointly and severally. To this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified. 13. 11. No other point has been pressed and argued before me. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 7 is held liable to pay the award amount jointly and severally. To this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified. 13. Other part, terms and conditions of the award are maintained.Appeal partly allowed *******