JUDGMENT : AMARESH KUMAR LAL, J.:–M.A. No.264/2008 and M.A. No.265/2008 have been filed against the judgment and award dated 29.02.2008 and 12.05.2008 respectively passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, 3rd, Patna in Claim Case Nos.1/2004 and 2/2004 by which the appellants have been held liable to pay compensation of Rs.22,80, 468/- for causing the death of Ramanuj Prasad Singh, husband of respondent no.1 and Rs.1,04,500/- for causing the death of Priyanka Singh, minor daughter of respondent no.1. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.06.2003 Ramanuj Prasad Singh (deceased) was travelling in Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No.UP-78R-2987 alongwith the members of his family i.e. his wife Sudha Singh and his daughters Diksha Soni, Kumari Sweata, Priyanka Singh (deceased) and Astha. They started their journey from Padrauna, District- Kushinagar to Muzaffarpur. The vehicle belonged to Dinesh Dubey (respondent no.5) and the same was given to Ramanuj Prasad Singh as friendly gesture without hire of the same and the same was being driven by Ramanuj Prasad Singh. As soon as, they reached near village Rampur, P.S.-Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj, a ‘Thela’ came in the middle of the road and to save the ‘Thela’ and its ‘Garivan’ a suddenbrake was applied and the vehicle skidded and fell into road side ditch causing damage to the vehicle and severe injuries to the aforesaid occupants of the vehicle including Ramanuj Prasad Singh who was driving the vehicle himself. All the injured were taken to Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj where Ramanuj Prasad Singh and Priyanka Singh were declared dead on 16/17-06-2003. The other injured Smt. Sudha Singh and Diksha Soni, Kumari Sweta and Astha (claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 4) were taken to Patna and after long treatment their life could be saved. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim case no.1/2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.23,30,468/- for the death of Ramanuj Prasad Singh and Claim Case No.2/2004 for grant of compensation to a tune of Rs.1,54,500/- for the death of Priyanka Singh with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the case till realization from appellant nos. 1 and 2 within three months from the date of order. 3. The owner and Insurer of the vehicle filed their separate written statement. After hearing both the parties, the impugned judgment has been passed. 4. 1 and 2 within three months from the date of order. 3. The owner and Insurer of the vehicle filed their separate written statement. After hearing both the parties, the impugned judgment has been passed. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the appellants have filed M.A. Nos.264/2008 and 265/2008 and raised two following important grounds :– 1. Whether the accident comes under the purview of Motor Accident Claim and maintainable for compensation under MV Act, 1988? 2. Whether the deceased who was driving the vehicle and died in the accident due to his own negligence can be termed as ‘third party’ under M.V. Act, 1988? 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the vehicle, in question, was being plied for hire purposes as the deceased did not have close proximity with the owner of the vehicle either in the capacity of friend or close relative, both have distinct entity and not connected with each other. By this way it comes under the breach of warranty thus exempts the Insurer’s liability. The question involves in this case is that what is the nature and extent of liability so far the 3rd party risk is concerned. In this case, the owner voluntarily given a goodbye to accept any liability, hence, the question of insurer’s liability does not arise as the insurer steps in the shoes of the owner. Even assuming and upholding the claimants’ plea that the vehicle was given to the deceased under goodwill gesture and not for hire purposes, the law laid down to the context is as follows :– “Deceased was driving vehicle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident without involving any other vehicle. Deceased having stepped into shoes of owner of the vehicle not entitled to claim compensation since Section 163A does not apply wherein owner of vehicle is involved”. 6. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Smt. Sakun Kushwaha & Ors. Vs. Dhaniram & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 103. 7. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellants that since the vehicle plied by the deceased himself met with an accident without involvement of any other motor vehicle, the accident in question does not come under the ambit of definition of 3rd party. Vs. Dhaniram & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 103. 7. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellants that since the vehicle plied by the deceased himself met with an accident without involvement of any other motor vehicle, the accident in question does not come under the ambit of definition of 3rd party. It was not a motor accident, as such; the police submitted the final form holding therein the accident simpliciter and not the motor accident. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of A. Sridhar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2011 SC 3833 . 8. He has further submitted that the 3rd party in absence of any special contract with insurer for indemnifying personal injury alongwith 3rd party liability, insurer is not liable to pay compensation as it has been held in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. K. Shanmugam and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 298 (Mad.). 9. He has further submitted that the FIR was not lodged. The occurrence took place on 16/17-06-2003 but the UD Case was lodged on 20.06.2003 which is afterthought. The vehicle was insured as private car package policy whereas, the same was being plied as commercially, hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in view of the decision in the case of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Md. Yunus and Ors. reported in 2010 (4) BBCJ 188 and in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Most. Sugandhi Devi and Ors. reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 127 . 10. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has submitted that the accident has occurred out of the use of the vehicle, as such, it is certainly the motor accident. The vehicle was insured as “Private Car Package Policy” (Exbt.6) and it was a comprehensive one, as such, the Insurance Company has a large coverage. The decisions citied on behalf of the appellants are not helpful to the Insurer in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has passed the order in accordance with law and this Court is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 11. The decisions citied on behalf of the appellants are not helpful to the Insurer in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has passed the order in accordance with law and this Court is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that Claim Case No.1/2004 has been filed by the claimants for the grant of compensation due to the death of Ramanuj Prasad Singh, the husband of respondent no.1 and the father of other claimants-respondents and Claim Case No.2/2004 has been filed for the grant of compensation due to the death of Priyanka Singh, minor daughter of respondent no.1. Since both the deceased died in course of the same accident, as such, both the claim cases have been made analogous vide order dated 6.08.2007 and accordingly, the evidence has been adduced which are common in both the claim cases as well as in both the appeals. 12. The Opposite Party no.1, owner of the vehicle (respondent no.5) filed his written statement stating therein that he is the owner of Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No.UP-78R-2987, which was insured comprehensively by the United India Insurance Company Limited as a Private Car Package Policy for payment of net premium of Rs.8386/- under Policy (Exbt.6). The aforesaid vehicle was given to the deceased Ramanuj Prasad Singh as friendly gesture without hire on demand by him. He came to know that while driving the said vehicle with his family members, the vehicle met with an accident. Ramanuj Prasad Singh had a valid driving licence to drive motorcycle and light motor vehicle, which was valid up to 09.12.2003. The said vehicle was duly registered and duly tax paid and it was in good running condition. The opposite party no.1, owner of the vehicle has already settled the claim of damage of the Jeep with the Insurance Company. 13. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (Appellants) filed their written statement stating therein that the claim case as framed is not maintainable. There is no cause of action to file such claim. The owner of the vehicle had given the vehicle to the deceased Ramanuj Prasad Singh on hire and thus has violated the terms of the Insurance Policy, so the owner alone is liable to pay compensation. There is no cause of action to file such claim. The owner of the vehicle had given the vehicle to the deceased Ramanuj Prasad Singh on hire and thus has violated the terms of the Insurance Policy, so the owner alone is liable to pay compensation. Ramanuj Prasad Singh was himself driving the aforesaid vehicle who had no valid driving licence and he died due to his own negligence of rash and negligence driving. 14. From perusal of the written statements, it appears that it has not been denied that the vehicle was not insured by the United Insurance Company Limited. 15. After framing of the issues, the following witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants: (i) P.W.1 Diksha Soni, P.W.2 Kumari Sweta Singh and P.W.3 Sudha Singh (wife of the deceased). 16. The following documentary evidence has been adduced, which are as follows : Exhibit 1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ext.2 is the certified copy of the final form, Ext.3 is the copy of salary sheet of the deceased Ramanuj Prasad Singh, Ext.4 is the family certificate, Ext.5 is the photo copy of the post-mortem report of Ramanuj Prasad Singh, Ext.6 is the photo copy of the Insurance Policy, Ext.7 is the photo copy of registration certificate, Ext.8 is the photo copy of driving licence of Ramanuj Prasad Singh, Ext.9 is the photo copy of matriculation certificate of Ramanuj Prasad Singh, Ext.10 is the photocopy of the admission card of Priyanka Singh, Ext.11 is the photo copy of the admit card, Ext.12 is the MVI report and Ext.9 A is the copy of the matriculation certificate of Sudha Singh. The investigation Report of accident has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company which has been marked as Ext.‘A’. 17. It appears from the oral evidence on behalf of the claimants that they have supported the claim of the claimants. After hearing both the sides, claim cases have been decided by the impugned judgment and award as stated above. 18. It appears from Exhibit ‘1’ that the fardbeyan of Dr. Ram Saran Pd. Singh, the younger brother of the deceased Ramanuj Pd. Singh was recorded on 17.06.2003 at about 11.30 A.M. at Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj which was forwarded to Officer-in-charge Sidhwalia Police Station for institution of the case as the place of occurrence lie in his jurisdiction. 18. It appears from Exhibit ‘1’ that the fardbeyan of Dr. Ram Saran Pd. Singh, the younger brother of the deceased Ramanuj Pd. Singh was recorded on 17.06.2003 at about 11.30 A.M. at Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj which was forwarded to Officer-in-charge Sidhwalia Police Station for institution of the case as the place of occurrence lie in his jurisdiction. Thereafter, Sidhwalia P.S. U.D. Case No.4/2003 dated 20.06.2003 was recorded, as such, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged at a belated stage and afterthought. So, the contention of the appellants that the FIR was lodged as a belated stage is not correct. 19. In this case, the Insurance Policy (Ext.6) is an important document which should be considered. It appears that that the Insurance Policy is a Private Car Package Policy. The period of Insurance policy was from 12.07.2002 to 11.07.2002 and it is well within the time of accident i.e. 16.03.2003. The limitation as to use, persons or class of persons entitled to drive and limits of liability read as follows :– Limitation as to use : The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than : (a) Hire or reward, (b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage), (c) Organized racing, (d) Pace making, (e) Speed testing, (f) Reliability trials, (g) Any purpose in connection with motor trade. Persons or class of persons entitled to drive : Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining an effective learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Limits of Liability : Under Section 11-I (i) in respect of any one accident as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under Section 11-I (ii) in respect of any one claims or series of claims arising out of one event up to Rs.750000/- . The package premium paid by the insured is own ‘damage+ liability’. For Gross OD & TP (own damage and third party) premium was paid to Rs.8386/- and for loading on TP premium was paid Rs.566/- by the insured. 20. The package premium paid by the insured is own ‘damage+ liability’. For Gross OD & TP (own damage and third party) premium was paid to Rs.8386/- and for loading on TP premium was paid Rs.566/- by the insured. 20. From perusal of the aforesaid policy paper as issued by the appellants-Insurance Company, it is clear that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the deceased driver has violated any terms or conditions as mentioned on the policy. The deceased was holding valid and effective driving licence (Ext.8) on the date and time of the accident. 21. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors. reported in 2009 ACJ 998 , it has been held in Para 13 as follows :– “ 13. The provisions of the Act, therefore, provide for two types of Insurance- one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. Whereas the insurance company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident; in case of involving owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property”. 22. In the present case, the insurer has taken package policy of his vehicle and has paid more premium than the ‘Act Policy’. In this event appellant-Insurer has taken contractual obligation to cover risk of all persons boarded on the vehicle as per Policy schedule. The vehicle’s sitting capacity including the driver is 9 + 1 in all as is apparent from Ext.7. 23. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants has also drawn attention of this Court towards Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority letter issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority dated 16.11.2009 to CEOs of all General Insurance Companies in reference to ‘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)”. “ Section 11- Liability to Third Parties : (1) Subjects 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 he 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”. 24. The appellant-insurer has neither brought any witness nor any documentary evidence to support his contention before the learned Tribunal. It is well settled principle of law that pleadings are required to be proved by leading evidence, so long evidence is not led in support of pleadings no reliance can be placed only on pleadings without there being any cogent evidence in support of pleadings, burden to prove a particular fact is always on the person who alleges the same. This view gets support from the decision in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Aziz Ahmad reported in 2009 (2) PLJR SC 131. It is relevant to quote para 13 :– “In our considered opinion the aforesaid findings are incorrect and cannot be upheld. The burden to prove a particular fact is always on the person who alleges the same. In the present case it was the contention of the respondent- workman, who claimed that the job requirements, nature and responsibilities of the post of Boiler Mistry/Fitter are identical and similar with that of the Boiler Overhauling Mechanic. The burden, therefore, was on the workman to prove and establish the aforesaid facts by leading cogent and reliable evidence. He was required to place documentary evidence in support of the same”. 25. In the case in hand, it has been pleaded on behalf of the appellants insurer that the deceased had no licence for driving the vehicle and was rash and negligence in driving but it has not been proved by the insurer rather Ext.8 shows that the deceased had a valid licence to drive the vehicle, in question. 26. 25. In the case in hand, it has been pleaded on behalf of the appellants insurer that the deceased had no licence for driving the vehicle and was rash and negligence in driving but it has not been proved by the insurer rather Ext.8 shows that the deceased had a valid licence to drive the vehicle, in question. 26. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Anr. (supra), the Insurance Policy was ‘Act Policy’ in which death of son of insured in accident occurred while driving motorcycle when a stray dog came in front of the vehicle. In appeal, Insurance Company raised the point that there is no provision wherein an insured may claim compensation from himself. Facts of the present case are entirely different from the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Anr. Here, the insured is not related with the deceased and the Insurance Policy was ‘Package Policy’. The insured (owner) was made opposite party in claim case no.1/04 and 2/04 and in both the cases owner had filed his written statement and stated in Para 2 that he handed over the Tata Sumo to Ramanuj Prasad Singh as a friendly gesture without hire on demand by the said Ramanuj Prasad Singh. As such, this decision is not helpful to the appellants. 27. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 , deceased was employed in a company which had provided him a car for business activities while driving that car, he died, as it collided with a tree. In this case, point in issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was ‘whether Insurance Company is liable to compensate for death of employee of company, who himself was driving vehicle, provided to him by company, for the purpose of business of company’. In the present case, fact is quite different from the facts of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal Case (supra), as such; this decision is also not helpful to the appellants. 28. In the case of A. Sridhar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. In the present case, fact is quite different from the facts of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal Case (supra), as such; this decision is also not helpful to the appellants. 28. In the case of A. Sridhar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2011 ACJ 2473 = AIR 2011 SC 3833 , a motorcycle met with an accident due to oil spill on the road and motorcyclist and pillion rider sustained injuries but in the present case, facts are quite different from the above case. In the present case, vehicle is Tata Sumo which is duly insured under Package Policy by the appellant-insurer. This decision does not help the appellants. 29. In the case of Smt. Sakun Kushwaha Vs. Dhani Ram and Ors. reported in AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 103 the facts of the case were entirely different from the present case, as such; it is not helpful to the appellants. Here, policy is not an ‘Act Policy’ but also covers risk of owner to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and extra premium has been paid for covering risk of owner, since policy covers risk of third party as well as cover risk of owner, hence covered under Section 147 (1) (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claimants are covered under third party claims. 30. It is also relevant to see Section 165 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.– Section 165 (1) of M.V. Act says “A state Government may, by notification in the official gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both” 31. Thus, the claim for compensation as made by the respondent-claimants are within the ambit of aforesaid section and maintainable under the M.V. Act, 1988. Besides the Section 165 of M.V. Act, 1988 ‘Motor Accident’ is no where defined in the M.V. Act, 1988. 32. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Bai reported in TAC 1999, Vol. II, Page no.1 on para 6 the third party has been defined as follows :– “6. Besides the Section 165 of M.V. Act, 1988 ‘Motor Accident’ is no where defined in the M.V. Act, 1988. 32. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Bai reported in TAC 1999, Vol. II, Page no.1 on para 6 the third party has been defined as follows :– “6. The expression ‘third party’ has not been defined. Then, what is the meaning of expression ‘third party’. Normally and ordinarily, a contract of Insurance has two parties to it, the insurer and the insured. Therefore, any party other than the contracting party of the contract of the insurance becomes and can be called as third party. The use of the words and expression ‘third party’ clearly indicates that it refers to a party who is neither the first party nor the second party to a contract of a insurance. Therefore, the expression ‘third party’ includes everyone be it a person travelling in vehicle itself or any other vehicle or one walking on the road. Section 149 (1) (b) (i) of the MV Act, 1988 directs that the Insurance Policy must insure the insured “against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place”. The term “any person” used in the above provision would include every person who incurs death caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle and the passenger in the vehicle is covered by the third party risk. In the case of Amrit Lal Sood and another Vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others, 1998 ACJ 531 : 1998 (2) TAC 97 Hon’ble Apex Court observed that ‘the expression’ any person would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car”. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that ‘once the company had undertaken liabilities to third parties incurred by the persons specified in the policy, the third parties right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy”. 33. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has also relied upon the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Secunderabad Vs. Palmoni Suresh and Another reported in 2010 (3) TAC 480 (AP), Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 33. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has also relied upon the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Secunderabad Vs. Palmoni Suresh and Another reported in 2010 (3) TAC 480 (AP), Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A Meenakshi and Others reported in 2009 ACJ 2218 for clarifying the topic ‘third party’. In both these decisions, ‘third party’ is defined as one who is neither the insurer nor the insured. 34. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, it can be concluded that both the deceased Ramanuj Prasad Singh and Priyanka Singh comes under the purview of ‘third party’ under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as they are neither insured nor insurer of the offending vehicle and have used the vehicle without violating the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 35. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed. 36. The parties will bear their own costs.