Judgment : The 2nd respondent-insurer of the crime vehicle, i.e. Jeep bearing No.AP 21 4899 belongs to 1st respondent to the claim petition in O.P.No.366 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur filed the appeal impugning the award in the claim petition filed by six dependents on the deceased by name R.Seve Naik, aged more than 55 years (as per Ex.A3 Post Mortem certificate), questioning the compensation awarded by the tribunal of Rs.67,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum out of the claim of 1,60,000/- and to dismiss the claim against the 2nd respondent as the crime vehicle was used for hire purpose by violating the terms of the policy as well as the statute. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6. Though, notice was sent to 7th respondent, but returned unserved for want of correct address and thus, the claim against 7th respondent is dismissed for default on 25.01.2010. (Since no further notice taken, the claim against him is dismissed for default.) The dismissal of the appeal against the 7th respondent owner is no bar to the maintainability of the appeal as per the division bench Judgment of the High Court in M.Chakradhar Rao v. Y.Babu Rao (2001(1) ALT-495 (DB) para-12). Thus the appeal is taken up for hearing to decide on merits. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal is erred in arriving at a wrong conclusion in fixing joint liability on the insured and insurer of the jeep though vehicle was used for hire purpose by violating the terms of the policy and thus to allow the appeal setting aside the award of the tribunal. 4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the tribunal was erred in fixing joint and several liability against the insurer to indemnify the insured/owner of the jeep and if so, the award of the tribunal is liable to be set aside? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 5. 4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the tribunal was erred in fixing joint and several liability against the insurer to indemnify the insured/owner of the jeep and if so, the award of the tribunal is liable to be set aside? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 5. The fact that the accident was result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime jeep of 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent, as proved before the tribunal from the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 First Information Report and Ex.A4 Charge sheet in Cr.No.150 of 1997 of Kurnool Police Station with reference to Ex.A5 MVI report and also found by the tribunal in answering issue No.1 at para 10 is not in dispute for the purpose of this appeal, but for so far as the findings of the tribunal in directing the insurer to indemnify the insured. 6. Coming to the liability of the insurer with the insured is concerned, the fact that Ex.B1 policy is issued by the insurer insuring the crime vehicle and also proved from the evidence of RW1 employer of the insurer are not in dispute. The fact that the crime vehicle i.e., jeep is a passenger vehicle is also not in dispute. It is not even their case that permit was issued only for personal use, but not as a transport vehicle. As no other record, much less by summoning the RTO to file concerned record, and Ex.A5 MVI report also silent on that aspect. When it is clear that it is a transport vehicle, and it being a passenger vehicle, needs to be considered from what PW1 stated that the driver collected Rs.10/- for boarding into the said vehicle. Once it is transport and not proved as non transport, the taking of a passenger for fare, no way prohibited, but for the issue whether policy covered or not. Once it is transport and not proved as non transport, the taking of a passenger for fare, no way prohibited, but for the issue whether policy covered or not. In National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Balakrishna and another (2013 ACJ 199), the Apex Court held that as per the IRDA regulations right from 1978, in so far as the occupants of a private vehicle and pillion rider on a two wheeler in 1996 circular, further clarified in 2008 and another i.e., the latest dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009 that were considered by Delhi High Court in answering the same with reference to the expression of the Delhi High Court in finding no necessity but for referred by the Apex Court in Bhagyalakshmi v.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2009(7) SCC 148 )to a larger bench. When the said IRDA circulars are very clear as to the conclusion of being it is an Act policy and no additional premium paid, even it is a passenger vehicle with transport vehicle, risk of the passengers as 3rd party need not be covered. That principle has no application practically from the very affirmation of RW1-employer of insurer, with reference to Ex.B1 policy before the tribunal. While contending that the risk of the passenger traveled in the vehicle not covered by policy, admitted that it is a seating capacity of 5 + 1 and within the capacity, the passengers were traveling and in Ex.B-1 policy there is a clear mention that separate premium was also collected for passengers, which is a comprehensive policy now redesignated as package policy and it depends upon different passengers to comprehend over the act policy and the policy covers the risk and the insurer has no right to contend that not liable to indemnify the insured much less for finding fault with the finding of the tribunal in fixing joint and several liability. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT-2 : 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.