JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. All these appeals by the Insurance Company are directed against the common judgment/award dated 30.09.2000 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhenkanal, in MAC No. 159 of 1994, MAC No. 171 of 1994, MAC No. 157 of 1994, MAC No. 160 of 1994, MAC No. 173 of 1994 and MAC No. 155 of 1994, which arises out of the self same accident, awarding compensation to the claimants and directing the Insurance Company to pay the same. 2. M.A. No. 187 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 159 of 1994, M.A. No. 188 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 171 of 1994, M.A. No. 189 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 157 of 1994, M.A. No. 190 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 160 of 1994, M.A. No. 191 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 173 of 1994 and M.A. No. 192 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 155 of 1994. 3. The facts common to all the above appeals are that on 03.03.1994, the deceased Jema alias Padmalaya Mishra and Sureswar Satpathy and other injured persons were travelling in a jeep bearing No. OSS 4841 from Puri and at about 3.30 P.M. near the Octroi check gate on N.H.42, at the outskirts of Dhenkanal town, the vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner, went to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against a tree and overturned. As a result of such accident, two occupants died and other passengers suffered injuries. 4. The owner of the offending jeep appeared and filed written statement before the learned Tribunal admitting that he was the owner of the jeep No. OSS .4841 and claimed that the vehicle stood insured with the present Appellant, under a valid policy of insurance. The owner further pleaded that at the relevant point of time the vehicle was not let out for hire and that the deceased persons as well as the injured persons were travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passengers, without any payment, due to his friendly accommodation. It was further pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that the accident took place not due to any rash and negligent act by the driver but due to reasons beyond the control of the driver. 5. It was further pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that the accident took place not due to any rash and negligent act by the driver but due to reasons beyond the control of the driver. 5. The Insurance Company in its written statement while denying the claim of the claimants, pleaded that as the offending vehicle (jeep) was carrying more than 10 passengers, on hire at the time of the accident, the same was in violation of the policy condition and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 6. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, including the FIR (Ext.1) and Charge Sheet (Ext.2), came to hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending jeep, for which, the police after investigation, has filed charge sheet against the accused driver under Sections 279/337/338/304A I.P.C. 7. Coming to the liability to pay the compensation amount, the Insurance Company pleaded that the offending vehicle (jeep) had been let out on hire at the time of accident and the same was carrying more passengers than the permitted seating capacity, which was in violation of the policy condition and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record and the plea of the owner of the vehicle, taken in the written statement, came to hold that the deceased persons as well as the injured persons were travelling in the offending jeep as gratuitous passengers and that carrying of excess passengers was not in violation of policy condition as per Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 8. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the sole contention that as the learned Tribunal has come to find that all the persons travelling in the offending jeep, at the time of the accident, were travelling as gratuitous passengers and the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle was an 'Act only' policy, no liability could have been saddled on the Insurance Company. It has been submitted that the words 'Act only' mentioned in the policy (Ext.A) clearly indicate that the liability of the Insurance Company was not an unlimited one but that which was mandatorily required under the M.V. Act so as to cover the liability of third party only. In this regard; it is submitted that Section 147 of the M.V. Act does not cover the risk of gratuitous passengers carried in a private vehicle and therefore the carriage of such gratuitous passengers in the offending jeep was clearly in violation of the terms and conditions of the 'Act only' policy on the part of the owner and consequently no liability to pay the compensation amount can be fastened on the Insurance Company. In such cases, even the recovery rights cannot be given as the Insurance Company is completely absolved from any liability to pay the compensation amount. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants in all the appeals submits that the 'Act only' policy does cover the liability of occupants of the offending jeep, who were admittedly travelling as gratuitous passengers and not for hire or reward and therefore the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation amount. It is further submitted that as the occupants of the offending jeep, which was insured as a private car, stand in the position of a 'third party', the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount awarded. 10. The insurance policy (Ext.A) clearly shows that the same is an Act only policy issued in respect of the offending jeep No. OSS 4841 as a private vehicle and there is no mention in the said policy with regard to any coverage of the occupants of the jeep and an amount of Rs. 305/ only has been paid by the owner towards insurance premium. 11. The sole question which requires consideration in all the above appeals is whether a 'Act only' policy, which is in the nature of a statutory policy u/s 147 of the M.V. Act intended to cover the risk to life or damage to properties of the third parties, would also cover the risk of death or injury to a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle. 12. 12. The issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra as the Apex Court has taken the view that Section 147 of the M.V. Act does not envisage coverage of risk of gratuitous passenger and therefore, to carry a gratuitous passenger is clearly in violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the owner, and consequently no liability to pay the compensation can be fastened on the Insurance Company. As back in the year 1977, the Supreme Court while considering the scope of statutory insurance u/s 95 of the M.V. Act, 1939, came to hold that the said provision required that the policy of insurance must be a policy insuring the insured against any liability incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to a third party and rejected the contention that the word 'third party' were wide enough to cover all persons except the insured and the insurer. Hon'ble Court accordingly held that it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward and therefore u/s 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured and the insurance company was held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - see Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Others Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1735 . 13. In Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 748 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to survey the law with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of gratuitous passengers. After referring to a number of decisions, the Hon'ble Court observed that the law on this subject is clear, a third party policy does not cover the liability to gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. The Insurance Company was held not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 14. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M. Jaya and Others, AIR 2002 SC 651 , while interpreting the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held as under: 'The liability could be statutory or contractual. 14. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M. Jaya and Others, AIR 2002 SC 651 , while interpreting the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held as under: 'The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability 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 the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible." 15. The Constitution Bench also referred to earlier decisions rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Bai and others, (1995) ACJ 470 and Amrit Lal Sood and Another Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others, (1998) 1 ACC 332, and observed that in case of an insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium, the liability of the Insurance Company is neither unlimited nor higher than the statutory liability fixed u/s 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was further observed that it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. 16. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, AIR 2003 SC 607 , the Supreme Court observed as under: Section 147 of 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does speak of any passenger in a good carriage. Furthermore, Sub-clauses (i) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of 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, whereas Sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle 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. 17. It is now well settled that the term 'any person' envisaged u/s 147 of the M.V. Act does not include any gratuitous passenger, as has been held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1340 . 18. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prembai Patel and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2337 , the Supreme Court while considering the extent of liability of the Insurance Company under an 'Act only policy, took note of Constitution Bench decision in C.M. Jaya case (supra) and proceeded to hold as under: Though the aforesaid decision has been rendered on Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 but the principle underlying therein will be fully applicable here also. It is thus clear that in case the owner of the vehicle wants the liability of the insurance company in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in sub Clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to Section 147(1)(b) should not be restricted to that under the Workmen's Act but should be more or unlimited, he must take such a policy by making payment of extra premium and the policy should also contain a clause to that effect. However, where the policy mentions "a policy for Act Liability" or "Act Liability", the liability of the insurance company qua the employees as aforesaid would not be unlimited but would be limited to that arising under the Workmen's Act. 19. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1576 , the Supreme Court while considering the liability of the Insurance Company under an 'Act only' policy vis vis the risk of gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle, affirmed the view taken in Asha Rani case (supra) and observed as under: In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rants 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. 20. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudhakaran K.V. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2729 , the Supreme Court while considering the question whether an 'Act only' policy would cover the risk of the pillion rider of a scooter, proceeded to hold that such a contract of insurance covered the risk of a third party and not that of the owner or pillion rider of a two wheeler. The Hon'ble Court held as follows: The law which emerges from the said decisions, is: (i) the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk; (ii) the legal obligation arising u/s 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle. 21. In the case of The General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 21. In the case of The General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi and Others, AIR 2009 SC 626 , the Supreme Court while considering a similar question as to the extent of liability of the Insurance Company under an 'Act only' policy in respect of a pillion rider in a scooter, held that such a policy does not cover the risk to a pillion passenger and only a 'Comprehensive' policy would cover such a risk. 22. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others, AIR 2009 SC 1788 the Supreme Court held as under: Contract of insurance of motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the quantum of premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an 'act policy', the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If the contention of the learned Counsel is to be accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act becomes otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. It is one thing to say that the life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act. It is not for the Court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational. 23. It is not for the Court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational. 23. Applying the principles of law as discussed above to the facts of the present case and keeping in view the fact that the two deceased persons as well as the injured persons were travelling in the offending jeep as gratuitous passengers and the policy of insurance issued in respect of the said vehicle was an 'Act only' policy, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company and the liability to pay the compensation amount awarded rests solely on the owner of the vehicle. The findings of the learned Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount and directing them to pay the same is accordingly set aside. It is open for the claimants to recover the awarded compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, in accordance with law. The impugned award stands modified to the said extent.