RAFIQ, J.—The only argument that has been raised by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants is that United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - respondent No.2 has wrongly been exonerated by the Tribunal even though the deceased was a pillion rider and the insurance policy was a package policy. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Yashpal Luthra and Anr. vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Anr. arising out of Mac. App. No.176/2009 decided on 9/12/2009, which has been further approved by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, United Insurance Co.Ltd. (The) vs. M.Laxmi & Ors. : MACD 2008 (SC) 418 = 2009(1) CCR 119 (SC). Counsel has produced certified copy of the package policy, which clearly indicated that it is a package policy. The policy be taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company has opposed the appeal and argued that in view of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, the issue has no longer res integra. 3. Once, it is established that the policy is a package policy, risk of the pillion rider would also be covered. 4. In the light of the aforesaid facts supported by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, the appeal deserve to succeed. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 19/06/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City is set-aside to the extent of exonerating the Untied India Insurance Co.Ltd. from its liability to make payment of compensation. Untied India Insurance Co.Ltd.-respondent No.2 is held liable to indemnify for payment of compensation to the claimants.