1. Heard Ms. A. Ajitsaria, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 20.7.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MACT Case No. 11 of 2003. 3. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 1.3.2002 when the respondent No.1 was coming to Golaghat by driving the vehicle No.AS-01G/6211 (Tata Sumo) as owned by the respondent No.1 and met the said accident at a sharp turning near Garampani, serious injuries that he received from the accident compelling him to be treated as an indoor patient for 25 days and also the insurance cover of the offending vehicle by the appellant are not in dispute by either of the parties or in the appeal. As such, those findings stand affirmed and fresh appraisal thereof is avoided. 4. The solitary question that has been projected in the appeal is that whether th6 appellant as the insurer has any liability to pay any compensation to the respondent No. 1 who received the injuries from the said accident and whether the liability is limited to the extent of Rs.20,000 in case it is found that the appellant is under obligation to pay the compensation. 5. Ms. Ajitsaria, learned counsel for the appellant seriously criticized the findings of the Tribunal while determining the Issue No.2 framed on whether the liability of the Insurance Company, the OP No.2 is limited as contended. Gainfully the said finding is extracted hereunder : "The opposite party No.2 in para 1 of their written statement contended that their liability to pay compensation is limited to the extent of Rs.20,000 subject to the injury sustained by the claimant in the light of IMT-71 under the terms and conditions of the policy. Shri Srimanta Mazumdar, DW1 is the Branch Manager of the OP No. 2. He admitted into evidence the certified copy of the policy Ext.A and the relevant portion of the Indian Motor Tariff, Ex-B in support of their contention made in para 1 of the additional written statement. During cross-examination he stated that the offending vehicle is a private vehicle and the policy of the vehicle laws a comprehensive policy. He admitted into evidence the certified copy of the policy Ext.A and the relevant portion of the Indian Motor Tariff, Ex-B in support of their contention made in para 1 of the additional written statement. During cross-examination he stated that the offending vehicle is a private vehicle and the policy of the vehicle laws a comprehensive policy. I have gone through the rule 71 of the Indian Motor Tariff framed by the Tariff Advisory Committee and it extended the benefits to the driver (other than paid driver) who are not otherwise covered in the Workmen's Compensation Act. But the present claim petition is filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the OP No.2 does not take the plea that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the said rule 71, IMT. Shri Paresh Saikia, the claimant, CW1, deposed that on 1.3.2002 at about 12-15 a.m. at night he was coming from Sarupathar to Golaghat by driving the offending vehicle and the opposite party No. 1, the owner of the vehicle was also with him in the vehicle and while reaching near Garampani, the vehicle turned turtle on the road due to mechanical defect and as a result he sustained the injury. During cross-examination, he stated that the owner is his friend. The claimant has travelled in the offending vehicle and had driven the same at the request of the owner who accompanied him in the vehicle. There is no plea from the side of the Insurance Company that the claimant did not have any driving licence and the driving licence if any possessed by the claimant was not proper and effective. The DW1 deposed that the offending vehicle is a private vehicle and the policy was a comprehensive policy. As the rule 71, IMT is not applicable in this case and the claimant is the third party in this case. In the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Anita, 1999(J)TAC, 563, the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held as under : "It is also noteworthy that the contract was between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. As such, the occupants of the vehicle, in such case, where persons have travelled at the request of the owner for giving him company would be deemed to be a third party. As such, the occupants of the vehicle, in such case, where persons have travelled at the request of the owner for giving him company would be deemed to be a third party. In our considered opinion therefore, Insurance Company, has rightly been held liable for making of compensation amount." The ruling cited above is benefiting with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. As such the Insurance Company, the OP No.2 is liable to pay compensation and their liability is not limited as contended. Hence, this issue is answered in the negative." 6. Ms. Ajitsaria, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the premises, in which the said finding has been returned cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as the occupants of the private vehicle cannot be treated as the third party as the private vehicles are not supposed to carry passengers as per the terms of their registration. In consideration thereof, even in the policy no premium had been charged. A special contract by paying a premium is unless entered into between the owner of the vehicle and the insurer, the coverage is not extended to the occupants. 7. On the other hand Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the claimant-respondent No. 1 while travelling by the vehicle sustained the injury. For realising the damage the claim has been raised under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the negligence is no more required element for deciding the claim. The claim has to be decided under no fault liability. Therefore, the finding as returned by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 8. On scrutiny of the records, it appears to this court that the claim was filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. From the deposition of the claimant (CW1) it appears that the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at the request of the owner of the vehicle, namely, Pulin Chandra Bharali, the respondent No.2 herein, who was also accompanying the respondent No. 1 at the time of journey. From the deposition of DW1, namely, Srimanta Mazumdar, a Branch Manager of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. it appears that no additional premium was paid for the accident coverage of the driver other than the paid driver. The United India Insurance Co. From the deposition of DW1, namely, Srimanta Mazumdar, a Branch Manager of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. it appears that no additional premium was paid for the accident coverage of the driver other than the paid driver. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Jorhat Branch is liable to pay as per the norms of the IMT No.71. 9. From the policy certificate, Ext. A it appears that the policy was a package policy and the contract of the insurance shall be governed by the terms, conditions and endorsement as per the tariff regulations applicable as on date of the issuance of the policy. There is no allegation by the appellant that the vehicle was being driven by a person without any licence. It appears from the accident information report, Ext. 1, the respondent No.1 was having the valid driving licence bearing No.DTGL/385/Prof/2001 which is a professional driving licence issued by the competent authority. The said driving licence has been admitted in the evidence as the Exbt.8. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle has engaged a professional driver for driving his vehicle. For the purpose of understanding the meaning of the paid driver, the payment is not the only criteria, engagement of a professional driver; is the sine qua non for that purpose. Therefore, for all purposes the respondent No.1 has to be treated as the paid driver within the meaning of the said policy terms. Apart that, in a package policy there can be no restriction so far the liability emerging out of the accident. A reference in this regard is required to be made to a circular of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) dated 16.11.2009 whereby it has been stated that "The Authority vide Circular No.066/IRDA/F&U/Mar-08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under File and Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further orders the insurers shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditions, wordings, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Further the Authority vide circular No.019/IRDA/NL/F&U/Oct-08 dated November 6, 2008 has mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standard covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. All General Insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. All General Insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. Therefore, there is no relevance of the IMT No.71 as referred by the appellant. However, this provision is not required to be referred to in view of what has been observed by this court regarding the status of the respondent No.1 in terms of the policy. 10. As corollary to this, this court holds that there is no substance in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall not be any order as to cost. The appellant is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation with interest as has been determined by the Tribunal within a period of two months from today in the Tribunal. The statutory deposit, if any, may be returned to the appellant for the purpose of making the final payment. There shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith.