JUDGMENT : S.R. Singharavelu, J. - The Insurance Company is the Appellant, who challenges the award dated 18.7.1996 passed by the Member, 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur, which had granted the award of Rs. 1,96,416 along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 2. The fact of the accident that took place on 29.9.1991 is not very much under serious dispute. The claimants are dependent on the deceased who traveled in the Jeep bearing registration Nos. 0884118, which while overtaking a cyclist had involved in an accident in which the deceased was thrown out of the Jeep. This was spoken to by three witnesses examined on the side of the claimants. 3. Copy of the FIR, copies of the postmortem report and death certificate were marked as Exts. 1 to 3. The pay particulars of the deceased were marked as Exts. 4 to 7. A.W. 1 is the widow of the deceased; AW. 3 is the employer of the deceased; and A.W. 2 is the eye witness to the occurrence. 4. After discussion of the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the Jeep was driving rashly and negligently and on that account the accident had taken place. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant-insurance company strenuously argued that the policy marked as Ext. A is only an Act policy covering 3rd party risk. It was further argued that the deceased inasmuch as was an occupant of the accidental jeep and was traveling therein gratuiously cannot have the benefit of compensation to his dependents upon his death. 6. The Learned Tribunal had also dealt with this aspect, discussed this issue and gave the finding as follows: The jeep was admittedly insured with the O.P. No. 2. There was thus a contract between the Insurance Company and owner of the jeep to indemnify the insured in case of an accident. The insurer can escape liability only by proving the terms of the contract have been violated. The onus for proving the violation of the contract lies on the insurer. In the present case the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the insured had violated the terms of the contract. The insurer can escape liability only by proving the terms of the contract have been violated. The onus for proving the violation of the contract lies on the insurer. In the present case the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the insured had violated the terms of the contract. In view of this, I entertain No. doubt that it is the Insurance Company who is liable to pay the compensation under the terms of the Insurance Policy. 7. True it is that it is for the Insurance Company to prove the violation of the policy. What the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/insurance company argued before me was that the Appellant is not depending upon the violation of the terms of contract; but it is only depending upon the exclusion of the terms of contract.. In short, according to the Appellant, Act policy will not cover the death of an occupant of the accidental vehicle. In other words, it will cover only third party risk. It was argued that the occupant is No. more a third party and so his death due to an accident is not covered under the Act policy. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ claimants relied upon the following Judgments: (1). Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanatan Pradhan and Another, Bhagaban Pradhan and Others, Daitari Pradhan and Another and Hemanta Pasayat and Another, (paragraphs 9 and 10); (2). Amrit Lal Sood and Another Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others, ; (3). 2000 (1) T.A.C. 687 Kerala (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajaya Kumar; and (4). 1998 (1) T.A.C. 187 Rajasthan (Abdul Jabbar v. Kesar and Ors.). 9. In Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal Sood and Another Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others, ; (3). 2000 (1) T.A.C. 687 Kerala (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajaya Kumar; and (4). 1998 (1) T.A.C. 187 Rajasthan (Abdul Jabbar v. Kesar and Ors.). 9. In Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanatan Pradhan and Another, Bhagaban Pradhan and Others, Daitari Pradhan and Another and Hemanta Pasayat and Another, reference was made to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Sagar Chand Phool Chand Jain v. Santosh Gupta 1985 ACJ 585 , where on reference to the Supreme Court judgment in 1977 ACJ 343 (SC) ( Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company Pvt. Ltd., the Learned Judge referred to the instruction of the Tariff Advisory Committee, a statutory body, which had issued instruction on 13.3.1978 to the Insurance Company in regard to the liability of the said company in respect of the passengers carried in a private car mandatorily requiring incorporation of the following clause in the insurance contract: Death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the motor car provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward. 10. This instruction was brought into force with effect from 25th March, 1977. It was held that the instruction of the Tariff Advisory Committee is statutory in nature and to which instruction the insurance companies are bound. In the instant case, as there is No. such material the citations may not be useful to the claimant. 11. It was argued that in the case laws in Amrit Lal Sood and Another Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others, paragraph-8 and 1998 (2) T.A.C. 365 (MP) paragraph 11, the person traveling in a car gratuitously sustained injuries when the car collided with a carrier due to negligence of the driver of the car - Insurance Company agreed to indemnify the insurer against death of or bodily injury to 'any person' u/s II 1 (a) of the policy - In L.P.A., findings of the single Judge was confirmed observing that the passenger was not carried for hire or reward and the insurance company will not be exempted from the liability. For making this decision reference was made to 1977 ACJ 343 (SC) (distinguished). For making this decision reference was made to 1977 ACJ 343 (SC) (distinguished). In this connection, reference to a decision rendered in the case of Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ketanreddi Subbareddy 1975 ACJ 95 (AP) shall be referred wherein the following was mentioned: The policy is what is styled as a comprehensive policy. Section II of the policy deals with liability to third parties. The first paragraph of Section II provides that the insurer shall indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the motor car against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to any person. It also provides that the insurer shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The expression used in the first paragraph of Section II is 'any person' and there is No. reason why the expression should be interpreted so as to exclude person traveling in the car. It may be noticed that the expression 'any person' is also used in Section 95 (l)(b)(i). But, the second proviso to Section 95(1)(b) expressly provides that liability in respect of death or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence need not be covered by the policy unless the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. There is No. similar exclusion in the policy with which we are concerned. While adopting the language of Section 95(1)(b)(i) the policy expressly omitted to exclude what is excluded by the proviso to that Section. I, therefore, hold that the policy is wide enough to cover liability. 12. Again in both the above mentioned Kerala and Rajasthan Judgments (2000 (1) T.A.C. 687 Kerala; 1998 (1) T.A.C 187 Rajasthan) similar case of travel by a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle which entered into an accident due to its driver's default was considered and held it was proviso (ii) which excluded passengers in private vehicle from the net of Section 95(1)(b)(i). Since that proviso is not available in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the general provision in Clause (i) has to be taken as applicable to such passengers. Therefore, it was held that a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle is also covered by the Act policy u/s 147 of the Act. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant per contra relied upon the following Judgments: 1. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan Vs. Rosamma Antony and Others, . 2. 1999 (1) T.A.C. 719 (Kant.) (R.Sathyanarayana v. Muralidhara and Anr.). 3. 1997(2) T.A.C. 387 (M.P.) (M.P.Ecectricity Board v. Ram Mohan Shrivastava and Ors. 4. AIR 2006 SCW 1822 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. 5. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagyalakshmi and Others, 14. In Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan Vs. Rosamma Antony and Others, as was held in the case law cited by the Learned Counsel for the claimant in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanatan Pradhan and Another, Bhagaban Pradhan and Others, Daitari Pradhan and Another and Hemanta Pasayat and Another it was held that the Tariff Advisory Committee instructions have No. application to an Act policy and are applicable only in a case of comprehensive policy and, therefore, it was further held that the Act policy does not cover risk passenger much less gratuitous passenger. 15. The Karnataka judgment in 1999 (1) T.A.C. 719 referring to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court including Amrit Lal Sood case, Amrit Lal Sood and Another Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others, and Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Others Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, held as follows: In the present case also, the policy is an Act.policy and in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court the present Appellants are not entitled to claim compensation for the injuries suffered by them as the policy does not cover the risk as it is an Act policy in view of the reason given in the judgment of the Supreme Court. Though it has been contended that the occupants in the private car are third parties and the Insurance Company is liable if it were comprehensive policy. 16. Though it has been contended that the occupants in the private car are third parties and the Insurance Company is liable if it were comprehensive policy. 16. Similarly, in the M.P.High Court 1997 (2) T.A.C. 387 it was held as follows: In view of the law laid down by the Supreme 'Court in case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Others Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, and the decisions of this Court in case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt Pramila 1989 JLJ 282 , Shivlal and Others etc. Vs. Smt. Rukmabai and Others a decision of Madras High Court in case of M.S. Durairaj, 1982 ACJ 261, a Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sm. Basmati Devi and Others, and a decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Krishna Gupta v. Madan Lal 1996 ACJ 165 wherein after referring to decisions of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts, the Learned Judge took the view that as No. extra premium was paid for covering the risk of the gratuitous passenger in the car, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. 17. In the latest case from Karnataka in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagyalakshmi and Others, reference was made to the earlier Supreme Court case laws and the following was observed: It is thus clear from the above decision of the Apex Court that the liability of insurance company could be statutory or contractual and a statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. Admittedly, there is No. statutory liability for the Appellant insurer to cover the risk of an occupant of a private car. However, there is nothing in Section 147 prohibiting the parties from contracting to cover wider risk In such an event, the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause in insurance policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or contract of insurance which is not permissible. 18. In the absence of such a term or clause in insurance policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or contract of insurance which is not permissible. 18. Finally, the latest position in the Supreme Court as seen from the case law in AIR 2006 SCW 1822 (Tilak Singh case) the observation made is as follows: In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case (supra) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the Same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the Appellant insurance company that it owed No. liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passengers. 19. In fact this dictum was followed in the above mentioned other case cited. Even in Amrit Lal Sood and Another Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others, the Supreme Court has left open where insurance company can claim it from the owner. 20. By considering all these aspects, it is made clear that as per the latest Supreme Court decision in AIR 2006 SCW 1822 and as per the dictum observed by the Supreme Court in Asha Rani and Amrit Lal Sood cases the gratuitous passenger of a private jeep upon his death cannot make his dependants entitled to claim from the insurance company. Their claim Will rest only upon the owner of the vehicle. Since there is No. dispute over the quantum, the owner (R3) of the vehicle shall pay the compensation along with interest awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. There Will be a decree against the owner (R3) and the claim against the Insurance company is dismissed. 21. The Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed