JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 20th June, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 52-S/2 of 2008/07, titled as Smt. Shankuntla & others versus Bajaj Allianz & others, whereby, compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,39,985/-, was awarded in favour of the claimants and the claim petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle-Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-10-1329 at the time of accident (for short, “the impugned award-I”). 2. The insurer, and owner-insured have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. Only the claimants have questioned the impugned award, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. All the issues framed by the Tribunal, except issue No. 7, came to be decided in favour of the claimants and that is the reason, the claim petition was dismissed. 5. There is no dispute regarding issues No. 1 to 6. I deem it proper to return issue wise findings. Issue No. 1. 6. I have gone through the record. I am of the considered view that the claimants have proved that the driver, namely, Lokinder Singh, had driven the offending vehicle-Maruti bearing registration No. HP-10-1329, rashly and negligently, on 30.03.2007, at about 9.30 a.m., near Chhol, Nagar Panchayat Kotkhai, Tehsil Kotkhai and caused the accident, in which deceased Harvinder sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issues No. 3 to 6. 7. It was for the respondents to prove issues No. 3 to 6, have not led any evidence, thus has failed to discharge the onus. The findings on these issues have not been questioned. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 3 to 6 are upheld. Issue No. 7. 8. Now coming to issue No. 7, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that deceased, namely, Harvinder was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger for the following reasons. 9. It was for the insurer to prove this issue, has failed to prove the same. 10. The deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle, which is a private car. Harvinder was an occupant. 9. It was for the insurer to prove this issue, has failed to prove the same. 10. The deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle, which is a private car. Harvinder was an occupant. The insurance company has placed on record policy Ext. R-1, which is package policy and not an Act Policy. 11. I was dealing 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 and it has been held that the occupant/(employee) of a vehicle of the employer, is covered by the “Comprehensive Insurance Policy.” I have delivered the judgment in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Shanti Bopanna and others decided on 8.3.2013. 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. 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 . “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. 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 authorised 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 authorised 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 travelling 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 [2011 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 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. Having said so, it cannot be said that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Accordingly, the insurer has to satisfy the award. 14. Having said so, it cannot be said that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Accordingly, the insurer has to satisfy the award. 14. It is apt to record herein that this Court in FAO No. 427 of 2009, titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and another versus Smt. Sumila Devi & others, decided on 16.10.2015, which was outcome of the same accident, has held the insurer liable. The said findings have attained finality. 15. Viewed thus, the findings returned on issue No. 7 are set aside and the insurer is saddled with the liability. Issue No. 2. 16. I have gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and returned the findings on this issue. Accordingly, the finding returned on this issue are upheld. 17. The insurer is held liable and has to satisfy the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 14,39,985/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, is directed to deposit the award amount within eight weeks from today before the Registry. On deposition, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, through payees’ account cheque. 18. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment.