RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company assailing the award dated 29/7/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, Ajmer on the ground that risk of the passenger in a vehicle was not covered because policy was intended to be covered the risk of the occupant. Risk of the other occupant was not covered. 2. I am afraid, this argument cannot be upheld in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager, United Insurance Co.Ltd. (The) vs. M.Laxmi & Ors. : MACD 2008 (SC) 418 = 2009(1) CCR 119 (SC) when there is package policy as in the present case, the insurance company has to be held liable to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation jointly and severally. This issue cropped up before the Delhi High Court in Yashpal Luthra and Anr. vs. United India Insur. Co.Ltd. and Anr. arising out of Mac.App.No.176/2009 decided on 9/12/2009, wherein it was noted by the High Court that tariff as well as terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy was regulated by Tariff Advisory Committee (for short, “TAC”) till 31/12/2006 and thereafter by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short, “IRDA”) under the Insurance Act, 1938. TAC issued a Circular dated 18/3/1978 to all the Insurance Companies to cover the risk of occupants in a private car under comprehensive policy w.e.f. 25/3/1977. TAC vide then subsequent Circular dated 2/6/1986 directed all the Insurance Companies to cover the risk of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the comprehensive policy. Comprehensive policy was later styled as “package policy”. The Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case summoned all the insurance companies, which admitted their liability to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation to the claimant in respect of the bodily injury or death in a motor accident. In fact, the IRDA issued a circular dated 6/11/2009 to all the Chief Executive Officers of the Insurance Companies clarifying the position relating to the liability of Insurance Companies in respect of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy. In fact, the IRDA issued a circular dated 6/11/2009 to all the Chief Executive Officers of the Insurance Companies clarifying the position relating to the liability of Insurance Companies in respect of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy. IRDA convened the meeting of all the Chief Executive Officers on 26/11/2009, who admitted their liability in respect of occupants in that respect and insurance companies agreed to comply with the Circular dated 16/11/2009 issued by the IRDA and further to withdraw the contrary plea wherever taken before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and accordingly to issue instructions to their respective lawyers. In those facts, it was held by the Delhi High Court in para 27 of the report, as under:- “In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/ package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occu-pants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/ package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.” 3. In M.Laxmi supra, a reference was made to the Circular dated 2/6/1986 with regard to compensation payable to the pillion riders in case of comprehensive policy and it was held that standard form for motorcycle should cover liability to pillion passengers in case of comprehensive policy but policy in that case was an Act Policy therefore, the insurance company was held not liable. 4. I do not find therefore any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Interim-order also stands vacated. The amount may be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award.