JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 7th September, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.27/02 RBT 15/05/02, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,33,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant, namely, Balwinder (respondent No.1 herein), with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the award till its realization, (for short, the ‘impugned award’). Brief facts: 2. Claimant Balwinder filed Claim Petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.27.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the petition, on the ground that the driver, namely, Sukh Dev Singh, had driven the offending tractor, bearing registration No.HP-20- 5115, rashly and negligently, as a result of which the said tractor met with an accident at Jankaur Guga Jhar in District Una on 13th November, 2001 at about 5.30 P.M. and the claimant sustained injuries. 3. Respondents i.e. owner/insured, driver and the insurer-appellant put in appearance before the Tribunal and filed replies to the Claim Petition. 4.On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned Tribunal: “1. Whether Balbinder Singh sustained injuries to his person by traveling as a labourer in tractor No.HP­20-5 1 15 being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner while driving at place Guga Jhar Jankaur on dated 13.1.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. and as such met with an accident? OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP. 3.Whether the petition is vague and does not disclose any cause of action? OPR-3 4.Whether the respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor? OPR-3 5.Whether tractor No.HP-20-5 115 was being used in violation of the insurance and R.C. terms and conditions as alleged? OPR-3. 6.Relief.” 5. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined PW-1 Gurbaksh Singh and PW-2 Dr.Indu Bhardwaj, and also appeared himself in the witness box. The driver of the offending tractor tendered his own statement - RW-1 and the insurer-appellant examined one Pawan Gautam-RW-2. 6.After examining the pleadings and the evidence, the Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and against the insurer-appellant and the insured. 7. The driver of the offending tractor tendered his own statement - RW-1 and the insurer-appellant examined one Pawan Gautam-RW-2. 6.After examining the pleadings and the evidence, the Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and against the insurer-appellant and the insured. 7. The impugned award has attained finality insofar as it relates to the owner/insured and the claimant. The insurer-appellant has questioned the impugned award only on the ground that the claimant was traveling in the offending tractor as gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the insurance Company was wrongly saddled with the liability. 8.I have gone through the record of the case. There is ample evidence on the file whereby it can be safely held that the claimant has proved that on 13.11.2011, at about 5.30 p.m., the driver of the offending tractor has driven the offending tractor rashly and negligently at Guga Jhar Jankaur, District Una and caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries. No evidence has been led by the insurer to prove/show that the claim petition was vague or the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues No.1, 3 and 4 are upheld. 9.The only question to be determined is whether the offending tractor was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy or registration certificate. In order to return the finding on the said question, it has to be seen whether the claimant was traveling in the tractor as gratuitous passenger. The positive case of the claimant, as set out in the Claim Petition, is that he was traveling in the offending tractor as a labourer, which fact has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 4 of the Claim Petition and has not been denied by the owner/insured and driver in their respective pleadings- replies. The insurer has also not denied the said fact either specifically or evasively. They have admitted the said fact. There is ample evidence on the record to the effect that the injured was engaged by the owner and the driver as labourer, which evidence has not been rebutted by the insurer. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the injured was traveling in the offending tractor as labourer are upheld. They have admitted the said fact. There is ample evidence on the record to the effect that the injured was engaged by the owner and the driver as labourer, which evidence has not been rebutted by the insurer. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the injured was traveling in the offending tractor as labourer are upheld. 10.Perusal of the insurance policy discloses that it is a “Package Policy”, which fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer during the course of arguments. 11.I was dealing with a case of the like nature as Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, where the award of Rs.1,68,09,089/- was made, wherein it was held that the insurer should resist itself from contesting the Claim Petition in which insurance cover is provided under the ‘comprehensive policy’/‘package policy’. The said judgment was delivered in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Shanti Bopanna and others, decided on 8.3.201 3. It is apt to reproduce paras 1, 2 and 16 of the judgment herein. “1.Does the “Comprehensive Policy of Insurance” exempts the Insurance Company from its liability of paying compensation to the victim of a vehicular accident who is traveling in a vehicle which is covered under such policy, at the time of accident, is but the only important point, raised in the instant appeal which seeks setting aside of Award dated 26th April, 2012, for short as impugned Award, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Samba, for short as Tribunal? 2. “No” is possible the only answer for the reasons those would flow from the narration of events below.” 3 to 15 16.Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Punjab and Haryana read with statement of the insurance official, S.K. Gupta, the appellant has rightly been saddled with the liability.” 12.Guidelines/circulars have also been issued by the IRDA, in which the Insurance Companies have been asked not to contest the Claim Petitions where the Insurance Policy is ‘package policy’. In the context, I also deem it proper to reproduce paras 10, 19, 21, and 26 of the judgment of the Apex Court titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 , hereunder: “10. In the context, I also deem it proper to reproduce paras 10, 19, 21, and 26 of the judgment of the Apex Court titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 , hereunder: “10. As per the command of Section 146 of the Act, the owner of a vehicle is obliged to obtain an insurance for the vehicle to cover the third party risk. Section 147 deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. Section 147 (1) which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced below:- “147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which - (a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and (b) insurers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place ; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; Provided that a policy shall not be required – (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee - (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.” On a scanning of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the policy of insurance must be a policy which complies with the conditions enumerated under Section 147 (1) (a) & (b). It also provides where a policy is not required and also stipulates to cover any contractual liability. 11 to 18 . 19. On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear as crystal that the decisions that have been referred to in Bhagyalakshmi (supra) involved only “Act Policies”. The Bench felt that the matter would be different if the Tariff Advisory Committee seeks to enforce its decision in regard to coverage of third party risk which would include an occupant in a vehicle. It is worth noting that the Bench referred to certain decisions of Delhi High Court and Madras High Court and thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Be it noted, in the said case, the Court was dealing with comprehensive policy which is also called a package policy. In that context, in the earlier part of the judgment, the Bench had stated thus:- “The policy in question is a package policy. The contract of insurance if given its face value covers the risk not only of a third party but also of persons traveling in the car including the owner thereof. The question is as to whether the policy in question is a comprehensive policy or only an Act policy.” 20.... 21. At this stage, it is apposite to note that when the decision in Bhagyalakshmi was rendered, a decision of High Court of Delhi dealing with the view of the Tariff Advisory Committee in respect of “comprehensive/package policy” had not come into the field. 21. At this stage, it is apposite to note that when the decision in Bhagyalakshmi was rendered, a decision of High Court of Delhi dealing with the view of the Tariff Advisory Committee in respect of “comprehensive/package policy” had not come into the field. We think it apt to refer to the same as it deals with certain factual position which can be of assistance. The High Court of Delhi in Yashpal Luthra and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another[201 1 ACJ 1415], after recording the evidence of the competent authority of Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), reproduced a circular dated 16.11.2009 issued by IRDA to CEOs of all the Insurance Companies restating the factual 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. 22 to 25. . . 26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed Bhagyalakshmi and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed Bhagyalakshmi and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.” 13.Following the same principle, this Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt.Anuradha and others, (FAO No.71 of 2011, decided on 10.1.2014), has held the insurer liable to pay compensation since the offending vehicle was covered under the ‘Comprehensive’/‘Package Policy’. 14.Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant with the liability. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited be released in favour of the claimant through payees cheque, strictly in terms of the impugned award.