ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This First Appeal is finally heard and is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The insurer challenges award rendered by learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, whereby Respondents, who are legal representatives of deceased owner of motor cycle (user of the offending vehicle), have been awarded compensation. 3. The facts are few. There is no dispute about the fact that a motor cycle bearing registration No.MH-23/G 9445 was owned by deceased Shrikant. The motor cycle was insured with the appellant at the time of alleged accident. On 7.1.2002 deceased Shrikant was riding on the motor cycle while going to village Sarni from Ambajogai. The motor cycle reached near a village, on the way, and while negotiating a curve suddenly struck a she-buffalo, which came in front, on the road. The motor cyclist - Shrikant was thrown off. He sustained head injury and other multiple injuries and became unconscious. He was shifted to S.R.T.R. Medical College and Hospital at Ambajogai. Lateron he was referred to Apex Hospital at Latur. He succumbed to the injuries on 3rd day of the accident i.e. on 9.1.2002. 4. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the accidental death of said Shrikant. They are his dependents. He was working as Gurusevak at village Sarni and was aged about 49 years at the relevant time. 5. The appellant (insurer) resisted the claim petition on the ground that risk of the deceased was not insured. It was contended that deceased was not a third party in relation to the vehicle and the contract of insurance and hence, the appellant was not liable to indemnify the claimants. It was contended further that risk of the owner, who himself was negligent while driving of the motor cycle, is not covered under the insurance contract and as such the claimants were not entitled to seek compensation from the appellant - insurer. 6. The Tribunal held that deceased Shrikant died as a result of use of the motor vehicle MH.23/G-9445. The Tribunal further held that the insurance policy covered risk of the deceased because it was a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance policy was issued for the purpose of covering risk of two persons and, therefore, the risk of the deceased was also included. The Tribunal further held that the insurance policy covered risk of the deceased because it was a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance policy was issued for the purpose of covering risk of two persons and, therefore, the risk of the deceased was also included. Consequently, having regard to the income of the deceased and the age of the deceased, award of Rs.4,63,000/- was rendered in favour of the Respondents by allowing the application filed U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. The questions of law and facts, which arise for determination, are as follows : "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal committed patent error while awarding compensation to the Claimants/Respondents without deciding the issue of negligence and rashness of the deceased and it was improper to award compensation when the accident occurred as a result of negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased or on account of the acts which were beyond his control, may be Vis major.? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal committed patent error while holding that the risk of the deceased - Shrikant was covered under the Insurance Policy because it was a comprehensive policy and sitting capacity of two persons are mentioned therein though the Insurance Policy did not specifically show that the owner’s risk was also covered thereby.?" Both the above points/questions are answered in the NEGATIVE for reasons discussed hereinafter. 8. Mr.Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, would submit that the claim petition could not be allowed in view of "Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt.Jhuma Saha and others" 2007 AIR SCW 859. He pointed out that there was no additional premium paid in respect of entire risk of the death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. He contended that the vague endorsement as "two (2) persons" in the Insurance Policy is in respect of the third parties and specifically only a paid driver is covered under the insurance contract as per terms of the Policy but not the deceased owner himself. He seeks to rely on "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M.Jaya and others" (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 651) and "Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another" (2004 AIR SCW 5438). He seeks to rely on "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M.Jaya and others" (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 651) and "Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another" (2004 AIR SCW 5438). In both the above cited cases, the expression "Comprehensive Policy" is succinctly explained by the Apex Court. 9. Mr.Mantri, learned advocate appearing for the Respondents, would submit that the insurer is covered by the Insurance Policy which was valid for two (2) persons. He submitted that the insurer failed to explain the details of tariff collected. He pointed out that version of D.W. Durgadas does not indicate, in clear terms, as to who are the two persons covered by the Insurance Policy. He would further submit that no specific issue was framed by the Tribunal in this behalf and, therefore, such issue need not be gone into at the stage of the appeal. He relied on "Amrit Lal Sood and another Vs. Smt.Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others" 1998 (2) ALL MR 684, "National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Jugal Kishore and others" (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 626. He contended that the deceased was not at fault. He would submit that when the policy is a comprehensive one then the risk of the deceased may be presumed to be covered under terms thereof. Consequently, he urged to dismiss the appeal. 10. The main thrust of the appellant is on the nature of insurance contract. It would be essential, therefore, to verify the terms of the Insurance Policy. The copies (Exh.20, Exh.21 and Exh.30) would show that the Insurance Policy was valid for two persons. The description given in the schedule of the premium is more important. It appears that on left hand side of the Policy (Exh.20) premium of Rs.313/- is said to have been collected under caption "own damage - basis". Thus, the part ‘A’ relates to risk pertaining to damage of the vehicle which is included in the risk so covered under the contract. The premium of Rs.77/- is collected towards liability to Public - Basic. Then there is additional amount of Rs.30/- collected for paid driver as per endorsement No.19 (two persons). The capacity of the vehicle is of two persons as per endorsement on the Insurance Policy. The premium of Rs.77/- is collected towards liability to Public - Basic. Then there is additional amount of Rs.30/- collected for paid driver as per endorsement No.19 (two persons). The capacity of the vehicle is of two persons as per endorsement on the Insurance Policy. This is covered under part B. The details shown in part B would make it manifest that specifically risk of the owner for the death or injury is not stated and covered thereby. The risk of paid driver is covered under the insurance contract. It is argued that there is no question of engaging any paid driver for the two wheeler. This argument does not appeal to me. The reason is not far to seek. A Two wheeler may be used, if appropriate permission is obtained from the R.T.O., as a taxi vehicle. This practice is in vogue in a State like Goa. The question whether endorsement "paid driver" is proper or not is outside the realm of consideration. The fact remains that the Insurance Policy, although is a comprehensive policy, yet, it comprehensively covers only the own damage risk in respect of damage caused to the vehicle and it does not cover the risk of the owner himself. 11. The version of D.W.1 Durgadas reveals that the Insurance Policy does not cover risk of the owner, i.e. deceased Shrikant Choudhari. He categorically states that there is no agreement between the appellant and the deceased owner in respect of the risk of the owner and the agreement is in respect of the third party liability. It appears that the Insurance Policy covers risks of a paid driver and pillion rider but does not cover that of the owner. 12. The learned Member of the Tribunal referred to case of "Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandrayana" 1987 ACJ 411 (Supreme Court). In the given case the Apex Court observed that where owner of the vehicle, while walking on a highway was knocked down by his own vehicle which was being driven in rash and negligent manner then also he would be covered if the said vehicle was being driven by duly appointed driver having a valid license. The risk of deceased Shrikant could have been covered if the motor cycle was being used by validly appointed licensed driver and said Shrikant was a pedestrian. The risk of deceased Shrikant could have been covered if the motor cycle was being used by validly appointed licensed driver and said Shrikant was a pedestrian. Had there been a case of negligent driving by such employed driver, and for the temporary purpose the owner was a third party, then perhaps the things would have been different. Still, however, when the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and the vehicle had given dash to buffalo on the road then the fact situation is totally different. 13. The Tribunal did not examine the question of negligence in the present case. There cannot be any other inference except that the accident was result of negligence on the part of the deceased himself or it was due to Vis major. In either case, the insurer cannot be held liable. The expression "Comprehensive Policy" as is explained in "Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another" (supra) would make it conspicuous that the premium under heading "Own damage" covers damage to the vehicle and not the injury to the person of owner. It was held that insured cannot claim compensation from insurer in absence of personal accident insurance coverage. So, unless there is a personal accident coverage available to the owner of the vehicle and that whether he was at fault or not, he can claim compensation for bodily injuries or his legal representatives can claim compensation on account of his death, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the claimants. In case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi Vs.Jugal Kishore and others" (supra) the Apex Court emphasised requirement of the insurer to produce the document of insurance contract. It is observed : "We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in civil appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in civil appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the court in doing justice between the parties." It may be mentioned here that the Insurance Policy is produced on record by the claimants as well as by the insurer. In the present case, the terms of the insurance contract can be asserted from the documents and there is no difficulty in reaching the proper conclusion. In "Amrit Lal Sood and another Vs. Smt.Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others" (supra) it was held that liability of insurer under the Comprehensive Policy would include any person which is a wider term. It was further observed that the words "any person" would include an occupant of car who was gratuitously travelling in the car. In the present case, the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger or a person outside the terms of the contract of insurance. He was a contracting party. The appellant would be liable to indemnify only the persons who are "third parties" in relation to the contract under the policy. The claimants/Respondents were not outside the realm of expression "parties to the contract" and hence, unless there is clear proof to show that premium was paid covering risk of the insured himself, the claim petition could not have been allowed. Needless to say, the impugned judgment is quite unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The claim petition be deemed as dismissed without costs. The amount deposited by the appellant be refunded after expiry of six (6) weeks. C.As. disposed of.