JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 84/2002, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,97,833/-has been awarded as compensation for the death of the claimant/Respondent No. 1's mother in a motor accident occurred on 4th May, 1999, arising out of the use of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-02/2267 (407 Tata Mini Truck), resulting in the death of the claimant's mother. 2. The claimant filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") claiming compensation for the death of his mother in the aforesaid accident. The said application was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 84/2002. The Appellant/Insurance Company, on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement. The owner of the offending vehicle initially, however, did not file the written statement, which was filed subsequently after remand. 3. The learned Tribunal initially vide judgment dated 28th March, 2005 awarded the compensation of Rs.3,33,000/-, for the death of the claimant's mother, against the owner of the offending vehicle, however, with a direction to the Insurance Company to satisfy the said award and to recover it from the owner subsequently. The said judgment and award was put to challenge by the Insurance Company before this Court in MAC Appeal No. 62/2005, which appeal was disposed of vide order dated 6th February, 2008 remanding the case to the learned Tribunal for deciding afresh, after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence, both oral and documentary, with regard to the coverage of risk of the owner of the offending vehicle relating to the passenger carried in the said commercial vehicle. 4. The Appellant/Insurance Company, after remand, filed the additional written statement. The owner of the offending vehicle also filed the written statement. The claimant in support of his claim altogether examined 2 (two) witnesses. The Insurance Company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle also examined 1 (one) witness each, after the remand. 4. The Appellant/Insurance Company, after remand, filed the additional written statement. The owner of the offending vehicle also filed the written statement. The claimant in support of his claim altogether examined 2 (two) witnesses. The Insurance Company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle also examined 1 (one) witness each, after the remand. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, by the impugned judgment dated 22nd February, 2010 awarded the amount of Rs.2,97,833/-, as compensation and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the said award with interest @ 9% per annum under Section 171 of the Act till final realization of the same, by holding that there is a contract of insurance between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle covering the risk of the owner in respect of the person carried in the commercial vehicle. Hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. M. Guite, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2. None appears for the claimant/Respondent No. 1, despite service. 6. Mr. Guite, learned Counsel for the Appellant referring to the policy of insurance, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-D/1, has submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle, the Respondent No. 2, by paying additional premium of Rs.75/- has covered his risk in relation to the legal liability to the non fare paying passengers as mentioned in IMT-13 of the contract of insurance and since the deceased was neither an employee nor any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle in question, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the amount of compensation awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award may be set aside. 7. Mr. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award may be set aside. 7. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, referring to IMT-13 of the contract of insurance has submitted that since the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle, the risk of the owner for payment of any compensation for bodily injury or death of such person is covered as the risk of the owner in respect of any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle in question is covered by the contract of insurance and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 8. From the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the present appeal is in a very narrow campus. The only question, which requires determination is whether the Insurance Company can be made liable for payment of compensation as awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle, because of the contract of insurance (Exhibit-D/1). 9. It appears from Exhibit-D/1, the insurance policy issued by the Appellant/Insurance Company, that an amount of Rs.75/- was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle for legal liability to non fare paying passenger as mentioned in IMT-13. For better appreciation, IMT-13 of the contract of insurance is reproduced below: 13. Legal Liability to Non-Fare Paying Passengers other than Statutory Liability except the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Commercial Vehicles only) In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs...... and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section II-I (b) and (c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the Insured against his legal liability other than liability under the Statute (except the Fatal Accidents Act 1855) in respect of death of or bodily injury to: (i) Any employee of the within named insured who is not a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act prior to the date of this endorsement and not being carried for hire or reward. (ii) Any other person not being carried for hire or reward provided that the person is (a) The owner or representative of the owner of the goods (b) Charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck (c) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from any Motor Vehicle described in the Schedule of the Policy. Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitation of this Policy. 10. The owner of the offending vehicle has, by paying such extra premium, covered his risk towards the legal liability of the non fare paying persons, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-I (b) and (c) of policy terms and conditions. Section II of the policy terms and conditions deals with the liability to 3rd parties. Section II-1 provides that subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses, which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle, subject to the stipulation in the proviso, which reads as under: (a) The Company shall not be liable in respect of death, injury damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriageway or thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of the load to the Motor Vehicle for loading thereon or the taking away of the load from the Motor Vehicle after unloading therefrom. (b) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the Insured arising out of and in the course of such employment. (b) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the Insured arising out of and in the course of such employment. (c) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract or employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle at the time of the occurrence or the event out of which any claim arises. (d) The company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property belonging to or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the Insured or a member of the Insured's household or being conveyed by the Motor Vehicle. (e) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to any bridge and/or viaduct and/or to any road and/or anything beneath by vibration or by the weight or the Motor Vehicle and/or load carried by the Motor Vehicle. 11. Reading proviso (b) and (c) of Section II-1 and IMT-13 of the terms and conditions of the policy, together, it appears that by paying extra premium, the legal liability of the owner towards the persons excluded from the 3rd party liability of the Insurance Company, by virtue of proviso (b) and (c) of Section II-1, has been taken over by the Insurance Company by entering into the contract of insurance. Proviso (b) and (c) of Section II-1 stipulates that the company shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment, except so far as is necessary to meet the requirement of the Motor Vehicle Act and it also shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person (other than the passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle at the time of occurrence or the event out of which any claim arises except so far as is necessary to met the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act in relation to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The owner of the motor vehicle having paid extra premium, made IMT-13 applicable and, therefore, has even covered his liability in respect of those persons, whose risk was excluded by proviso (b) and (c) of Section II-1 of the terms and conditions of the policy. 12. In the case in hand, the deceased was a non fare paying passenger in respect of the goods carrying vehicle. He was neither an employee nor the owner or representative of the owner of the goods or charterer or representative of charterer of the vehicle or a person directly connected with the journey in one form or other as stipulated in IMT-13. The deceased also does not come within the class of persons mentioned in Section II-1 (b) or (c) of the terms and conditions of the policy. 13. That being the position, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the amount of compensation awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle, since such liability can be fasten only subject to the contract of insurance between the parties. 14. Hence the directions contained in the impugned judgment and award dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is set aside. It is open to the claimant/Respondent No. 1 to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle as provided in the Act. 15. The appeal stands allowed as indicated above. No costs. 16. The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith. Appeal allowed.