JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. M. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. S, Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8. By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. questioned the legality of the judgment and award dated 19.07.2008 passed in T.S. (MAC) No. 76 of 2007 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur on the ground that the learned Tribunal below by saddling the liability of the payment in the following manner: Respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Limited, Agartala Branch, and Respondent No. 5 United India Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur Branch, the insurer of the offending vehicles bearing No. TR-01-A-1311 (Canter Bus) and TR-01-F-0412 (Maruti Car) respectively, shall pay the compensation as awarded in favour of the Claimants in equal share within a period of 2 (two) months from this day foiling which the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition before the Tribunal on 14.05.2007 till realisation if the amount of compensation is not paid within the stipulated period as aforesaid. 2. The accident occurred for a head on collision between the two vehicles bearing Registration No. TR-01-A-1311 (Canter Bus) and TR-01-F-0412 (Maruti Car) on 2.3.2007 at Parimal Chowmuhani, Charilam. As a result of which Rathindra Kalai died and the claimant-respondents, as the legal representative, for recovery of the damages, filed the claim-petition under Section 166 of the MV Act. 3. On scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,41,264.00: There is no parallel appeal or cross objection by the claimant-respondents. 4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company made a reference to the relevant insurance policy whereby the Maruti vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-01-F-0412 was given cover for the period from 21.10.2006 to 20.10.2007. Since the accident occurred on 02.03.2007 the insurance company was admittedly under obligation to indemnify the liability of payment but Mr. 4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company made a reference to the relevant insurance policy whereby the Maruti vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-01-F-0412 was given cover for the period from 21.10.2006 to 20.10.2007. Since the accident occurred on 02.03.2007 the insurance company was admittedly under obligation to indemnify the liability of payment but Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the said insurance company vehemently argued that the liability of payment in view of the following schedule of the premium as appearing in the said insurance policy is limited to Rs. 1,00,000/- per person and for the owner/driver to Rs. 2,00,000.00. Therefore, the liability of payment more than that cannot be shifted to the appellant-insurance company. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 refuted such claim holding that the liability of the occupants in a private vehicle when the vehicle is under the standard motor package policy cannot be limited and the same is unlimited similar to the damages as suffered by the third parties. In respect of his contention, he referred a general circular under No. IRDA/NL/CIR/F & U/073/11/2009 dated 16.11.2009 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). 6. For the purpose of appreciation, the entire circular is reproduced hereunder: To CEOs of all General Insurance Companies Re: Liability of Insurance Companies in respect of Occupant of a Private Car and Pillion Rider in a Two-Wheeler under Standard Motor Package policy (Also called Comprehensive Policy) Insurers' attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1 (i) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy) for Private Car and Two-Wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder: Section 11 - Liability to Third Parties 1. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder: Section 11 - Liability to Third Parties 1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of- (i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured, It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above provisions are in line with the following circulars earlier issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee on the subject: (i) Circular M.V. No. 1 of 1978 - dated 18th March 1978 (regarding occupants carried in Private Car) effective from 25th March 1977. (ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2nd June 1986 (regarding Pillion Riders in a Two-Wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. The above circulars make it clear that the Insured's liability in respect of Occupant(s) carried in a Private Car and Pillion Rider carried on Two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. A copy each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference. The Authority vide circular No. 066/IRDA/F & U/Mar-08 dated March 26,2008 issued under File & 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 noncompliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of Competent Authority. 7. All General Insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any noncompliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of Competent Authority. 7. From a bare reading of the circular of Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA) dated 16.11.2009 it appears that the IRDA has adopted Section II of the standard motor package policy, also called the comprehensive policy for the private car and two wheeler under the erstwhile India motor tariff and the circular dated 18.03.1978 which came into force w.e.f. 25.03.1977 and the circular dated 02.06.1986 make it clear that the insurance liability in respect of the occupants carried in a private car as a pillion rider carried on two wheelers is covered under the standard motor package policy and as such it was mandated by the IRDA by its previous circular dated 06.11.2008 that the insurers are not permitted to abridge the cover of the standard coverage available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. 8. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submitted that the standard cover under the erstwhile tariffs was unlimited and as such any provision coming contrary thereto would be illegal since the tariff and the conditions of the standard insurance are subject to approval by the IRDA. For that reason, the IRDA cautioned unless those conditions are adhered to, the IRDA would view such breach seriously. 9. There is no dispute that IRDA is the regulatory authority whose mandates are to be followed by the general insurance companies and as such the said mandate can be read along with the policy conditions. A conjoint reading of the conditions as referred to by Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and the mandate as referred by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 would take us to a conclusion that the insurance company cannot abridge the liability when the vehicle under the standard motor package policy and as such the insurance company has to shoulder the liability of making payment of the damages as ascertained by the learned Tribunal or other competent authority. 10. In view of this, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned direction as given by the learned Tribunal below. 11. For the reasons as aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed. 12. Send down the LCRs forthwith. 13. 10. In view of this, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned direction as given by the learned Tribunal below. 11. For the reasons as aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed. 12. Send down the LCRs forthwith. 13. A copy of the IRDA Circular dated 16.11.2009 is kept in the record for future reference. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed