JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the correctness of order dated 26-11-2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nizamabad in O.P No 1173 of 2001. 2. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the mother and father of the deceased K. Rajamouli who died in a motor vehicle accident on 24-04-2001 at 3.30 am in the shivar of Devanpally Village. While he was proceeding from Kamareddy towards Banswada in a jeep bearing No. AP 25 F 1895 owned by respondent No. 6 and insured with the appellant - Insurance Company. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the vehicle turned turtle when it reached shivar of Devanpally Village as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. On the death of the deceased, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 moved the Tribunal by way of filing the said O.P under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle filed a counter contending that the jeep was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident and as such, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company who was the 2nd respondent in the O.P also filed its counter denying all the material allegations. It is specifically pleaded that Act Policy has been issued to the vehicle involved in the accident and as per the statement of the owner of the jeep, the vehicle is hired to Eenadu daily newspaper against the policy conditions and the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as an unauthorized passenger (fare paying passenger) at the time of accident in violation of the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as per the provisions of the Act. 3. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for trial: "1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. - AP-25-F-1895 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as per the provisions of the Act. 3. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for trial: "1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. - AP-25-F-1895 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the Respondents? 3. To what relief?" 4. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, the wife of the deceased is examined as PW 1 and one Sangameshwar is examined as PW 2 who deposed that himself, deceased and the owner of the jeep and another travelled in the jeep for business purpose and while returning from Banswada, the jeep met with an accident. Apart from the above oral evidence, Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The Assistant of the Insurance Company is examined as RW 1 and the advocate who is appointed as an Investigator by the Insurance Company is examined as RW 2 and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of the Insurance Company. 5. On the above evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal on point No.1 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. On point No.2, it was held that the gross income of the deceased who was running a cloth shop as per Ex.A-4 was Rs.2,18,965.95 ps per annum and after deducting all the expenditure, the net profit was arrived at Rs.59,120.95 ps. The total income of the deceased after adding the interest amount was calculated at Rs.1,21,212.95 ps and after deducting one-third towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, his contribution to the family was assessed at Rs.80,809/-, With regard to the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal, in a slip short manner, observed that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability from payment of compensation and accordingly, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company and awarded an amount of Rs.10,75,517/- as compensation holding that the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence, this appeal. 6. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that on the date of accident, the deceased travelled in a private jeep insured under an Act Policy and, therefore, the occupants and inmates of the said vehicle are not third parties to make the Insurance Company liable for payment of the compensation. In support of her submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yallwwa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. N. Rukkamma and others and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Eluru v. Muppala Anasuryanvathi. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants contends that in the absence of any plea taken by the Insurance Company about non-payment of extra premium and that the Act Policy does not cover the passengers travelling in a private jeep, it is not open for the Insurance Company to raise such pleas in this appeal since it is not established by the Insurance Company that more than five passengers travelled in the vehicle. Therefore, it cannot escape from its liability. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v. Nakirikanti Narendra Babu and others, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad v. R. Anantha Reddy and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shaik Husain. 8. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation for the passengers who travelled in the jeep which is covered by an Act Policy. 9. The Insurance Company in its counter specifically denied its liability pleading that Act Policy has been issued to the vehicle which is hired to Eenade daily newspaper against the policy conditions in which the deceased travelled as an unauthorized passenger at the time of accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 10. In substantiation of the above plea, the Assistant of the Insurance Company is examined as RW 1. He deposed that according to police report, about nine persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. As per the policy conditions, if the persons travelling in the vehicle are unauthorized, then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He deposed that according to police report, about nine persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. As per the policy conditions, if the persons travelling in the vehicle are unauthorized, then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He denied the suggestion that the deceased along with the other two friends of respondent No. 1 (owner) went to Kamareddy on the work of respondent No.1 and they are not travelling as fare paid passengers and also denied the suggestion that only five passengers were travelling in the jeep but not nine passengers and that the deceased comes under 'third party'. Ex.A-5 is the copy of Insurance cover note which clearly shows that policy is only an Act Policy. The columns 'additional risks is any covered' and 'special conditions if any' are kept blank. It is thus clear that no extra premium has been paid to cover the passengers who travelled in the jeep. In Yellwwa's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court after referring to the various judgments held thus: "The recent decisions of this court are authorities for the proposition that the insurance company would not be liable in cases where passengers of vehicles are not third parties." 13. In N. Rukkamma's case (2 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha7 wherein the Supreme Court followed its earlier judgment in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., held that Section 147 of the Act does not contemplate coverage of any risk of bodily injury or death to the owner of the vehicle unless such risk is covered by the policy. 14. As per the judgment of this Court in Muppala Anasuryanvathi's case (3 supra), it is obvious that whether it is a comprehensive policy or an Act policy, the insurer is not liable where the policy does not cover the risk of even the owner treating him as third party, unless it is specifically agreed that separate premium is paid covering the risk of third parties. 15. The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. 15. The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Tilak Singh9, after referring to the judgment in T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M10, wherein Variava, J had an occasion to survey the law with regard to the liability of insurance companies in respect of gratuitous passengers, held as under: "In our view, although the observations made in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani11 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." 16. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Muppala Anasuryanvathi's case (3 supra) held thus: "Merely because the scooter has capacity to carry two persons it does not mean that an Act policy taken by its owner covers the risk of two persons travelling on it. 'Third party' in the insurance parlance is a person who is not travelling in or on the vehicle, which is insured. So, persons not travelling in or on the vehicle insured only would be covered by third party risk. Persons travelling in or on a vehicle would not be covered by that policy because they are not 'third parties'. Since no extra premium is paid for covering the risk of the driver and pillion rider, I hold that the third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants." 17. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal12, the Supreme Court after referring to Section 147 of the Act held as under: "As we understand Section 147 (1) of the Act, an insurance policy thereunder need no cover the liability in respect of death or injury arising out of and in the course of the employment of an employee of the person insured by the policy, unless it be a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of a driver, also the conductor, in the case of a public service vehicle, and the one carried in the vehicle as owner of the goods or his representative, if it is a goods vehicle. It is provided that the policy also shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. It is provided that the policy also shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. Uninfluenced by authorities, we find no difficulty in understanding this provision as one providing that the policy must insure an owner against any liability to a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, and against death 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. The proviso clarifies that the policy shall not be required to cover an employee of the insured in respect of bodily injury or death arising out of and in the course of his employment. Then an exception is provided to the last foregoing to the effect that the policy must cover a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death or bodily injury to an employee who is engaged in driving the vehicle or who serves as a conductor in a public service vehicle or an employee who travels in the vehicle of the employer carrying goods if it is a goods carriage. Section 149 (1) which casts an obligation on an insurer to satisfy an award also speaks only of award in respect of such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy). This provision cannot therefore be used to enlarge the liability if it does not exist in terms of Section 147 of the Act." 18. After referring to the various judgments on the issue, it was further held as under: "In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. V. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr.13 [ (1977) 3 S.C.R. 372 ], two of the learned judges who constituted the Bench in Minu B. Mehta & Anr. V. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. ( AIR 1977 SC 1248 ) held that when a car is driven by the owner's employee on owner's business, the normal rule was that it was for the claimant for compensation to prove negligence. V. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. ( AIR 1977 SC 1248 ) held that when a car is driven by the owner's employee on owner's business, the normal rule was that it was for the claimant for compensation to prove negligence. When the Manager of the owner while driving the car on the business of the owner took in a passenger, it would be taken that he had the authority to do so, considering his position unless otherwise shown. If due to his negligent driving an accident occurred and the passenger died, the owner would be liable for compensation. The court noticed that the modern trend was to make the master liable for acts of his servant which may not fall within the expression "in the course of his employment" as formerly understood. With respect, we think that the extensions to the principle of liability has been rightly indicate din this decision." In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi's case (13 supra), the Supreme Court after referring to the provisions of Section 95 (a) and 95 (b) (i) of the Act laid as under: "Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under Section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act." 20. The decisions upon which reliance is laid by the learned counsel for the respondents - claimants are contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration to fix the liability on the Insurance Company. Further, the Supreme Court in Meena Variyal's case (12 supra) after interpreting Section 147 of the Act accepted the ratio laid down in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi's case (13 supra). Once the Insurance Company under Ex.A-5 cover note has not undertaken the liability by collecting extra premium for the passengers who travelled in the insured vehicle, it cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and it is only the respondent - owner of the vehicle who is liable to satisfy the decree and pay the compensation amount. 21. Once the Insurance Company under Ex.A-5 cover note has not undertaken the liability by collecting extra premium for the passengers who travelled in the insured vehicle, it cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and it is only the respondent - owner of the vehicle who is liable to satisfy the decree and pay the compensation amount. 21. In view of the same, the C.M.A is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court that the Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation is set aside. The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount deposited by it from the owner of the vehicle.