JUDGMENT 1. 1. These nine civil misc. appeals have been filed against the award dated 30-4-2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur. 2. Since all these appeals are preferred against common award, these appeals are decided by this common judgment. 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 16-8-2001, Dharam Singh, Keshav Deo, Santosh, Chandra Shekhar, Chandra Bhan and some other persons were going by Jeep No. RJ-C 1752 to Haridwar for taking holi dip in the river Ganga. The jeep was owned by the cousin of Chandrabhan. All the passengers were travelling without paying any fare as they were known to the owner of the jeep. 4. A carrier was fixed on the roof of the jeep for the luggage. The passengers noticed that the carrier was loosely bolted and as such they informed the driver in this regard but he did not pay any heed and continued driving in a rash and negligent manner. Because of this, the carrier fell down on the back side of the jeep because of which the lock of the back door of the jeep broken and the jeep firstly collided with a tree and then with an electric pole. In this accident, Dharam Singh, Keshav Dev, Santosh and Chandra Shekhar died Chandra Bhan sustained serious injuries. 5. Although a report has been filed in the Roj Namcha in the police station Murad Nagar, District Gaziabad (U. P.) which has been registered as report No. 14/16-8-2001. 6. Thereafter, the claim was filed. After service, written statements were filed. Issues were framed. Evidence was produced. After hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the award dated 30th April, 2007. 7. In the award, liability of insurance Company has been fixed only upto rupees one lac assuming the policy as an Act policy. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants as well as owner have challenged the issue No. 4A of the award which deals with the policy. 9. Learned counsel Mr. 7. In the award, liability of insurance Company has been fixed only upto rupees one lac assuming the policy as an Act policy. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants as well as owner have challenged the issue No. 4A of the award which deals with the policy. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Mathur appearing on behalf of the claimants in the abovesaid five appeals and Jitendra Mitruka appearing on behalf of the owner in the abovesaid four appeals have claimed that the liability fixed by the Tribunal upon the insurance company only upto Rupees one lac is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case " General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi & others" reported in 2009 ACJ 104 : ( AIR 2009 SC 626 ) wherein Hon ble the Supreme Court in various paras has held as under : "Para 3 - It was pointed out that admittedly, the policy of insurance was an Act policy and the deceased was a pillion rider and also gratuitouos passenger and hence, not a third party and he cannot claim compensation from the insurance company which insured the vehicle. The learned Additional Special Judge who adjudicated the claim petition held that the policy was an Act policy in respect of the scooter on the date of the accident, therefore, the insurer had no liability. It was categorically held that unless the policy in question covers even a gratuitous passenger, such person, who met with an accident while going in the vehicle in question and received injuries or his legal heirs, in case of his death following such accident, cannot proceed against the concerned insurance company for any compensation. The compensation payable was fixed at Rs. 1,07,436/- with 12 per cent interest per annum. It was held that the sum was to be realised from the insured and not from the present appellant. Para 6. There is no dispute that the circular dated 2-6-1986 refers to the comprehensive policy. It categorically states that standard form for motor cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers in case of comprehensive policy. As noted by the M. A. C. T., the policy in the instant case was an Act policy. Para 7. In New India Assurance Co. There is no dispute that the circular dated 2-6-1986 refers to the comprehensive policy. It categorically states that standard form for motor cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers in case of comprehensive policy. As noted by the M. A. C. T., the policy in the instant case was an Act policy. Para 7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 : ( AIR 2003 SC 607 ) , it has been noted as follows : Section 147 of 1998 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. It does not speak of any passenger in a goods carriage . Para 8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1576 ), it has been noted as follows : In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani s case, 2003 ACJ 1 : ( AIR 2003 SC 607 ) 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 appellant insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodilty injury to a gratuitous passenger." Para 9. In view of what has been stated by this Court in Asha Rani and Tilak Singh cases, the order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside and that of the M. A. C. T. is restored." 10. In these cases it has been decided that the insurance company is liable for entire award amount where the policy is comprehensive and that the basic premium can cover the risk of the occupant also. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Sandeep Mathur has not challenged the quantum of amount. In these cases it has been decided that the insurance company is liable for entire award amount where the policy is comprehensive and that the basic premium can cover the risk of the occupant also. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Sandeep Mathur has not challenged the quantum of amount. And he is only requesting this Court that the award to the extent of liability which has been fixed upon the insurance company by the Tribunal upto Rupees one lac only, should be modified by this Court upto unlimited or upto the award amount passed by the Tribunal. 12. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Virendra Agarwal appearing on behalf of the insurance company has seriously opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 13. He has also drawn attention of this Court that in this award question of negligence is also involved and on the basis of question of negligence this award is challenged. I have gone through the award dated 30-4-2007. As there is no appeal by the insurance company to this effect, this question cannot be adjudicated by this Court although this question has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and decided against the insurance company. 14. In the aforesaid judgments Hon ble the Supreme Court held that the insurance company was not liable under the Act Policy but it is liable if there is comprehensive policy and that the basic premium can cover the risk of the occupant also. In the instant case also, there is comprehensive policy. And, as such, the insurance company is liable for the entire award amount. 15. For these reasons, I modify the award dated 30-4-2007 and the liability fixed by the Tribunal against the insurance company only upto rupees one lac is made upto the award amount. 16. Consequently, all these appeals stand partly allowed.Order accordingly. *******