JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 14th June, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 16- NL/2 of 2007/06, titled as Shri Ram Asra versus Shri Rajnit Singh and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,57,871/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its deposition came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured, namely Shri Ram Asra and the appellant-insured was saddled with liability (for short ?the impugned award"). 2. The claimant-injured and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling him with liability and exonerating the insurer. 4. Thus, the only question involved in this appeal is - whether the Tribunal has rightly held that the risk of the pillion rider was not covered? The answer is in negative for the following reasons: 5. I have perused the record. While going through the insurance cover, Ext. R-1, and the insurance policy, Ext. R-4, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the risk of the pillion rider is covered. 6. Learned counsel for the insurer was confronted with the insurance cover and the insurance policy, Ext. R-1 and R-4, respectively. He has frankly conceded that in terms of the insurance cover, Ext. R-1, risk of two passengers is covered. 7. Perusal of the insurance cover, Ext. R-1, does disclose that the risk of two passengers was covered. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the insurance cover, Ext. R-1, herein: DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE INSURED Make & Registration No. of the vehicle Year of manufacture Cubic capacity Licensed Carrying Capacity Insured's estimate of value including accessories Goods (Gross vehicle weight) Passengers HP 12 A 0639 Bj Chetak 2000 150 cc Two 7000/- 8. I deem it proper to record herein that the insurance policy, Ext. R-4, on the face of it, is a package policy and a package policy covers the risk not only of a third party, but also of the occupants of the vehicle. 9. Even otherwise, this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Anuradha and others, reported in 2014 (1) Him. R-4, on the face of it, is a package policy and a package policy covers the risk not only of a third party, but also of the occupants of the vehicle. 9. Even otherwise, this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Anuradha and others, reported in 2014 (1) Him. LR 208, has held that the comprehensive/package policy covers the risk of persons travelling in the vehicle including the owner. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in exonerating the insurer and saddling the owner-insured with liability. 11. Viewed thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer has to satisfy the entire liability. 12. Insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount within six weeks before the Registry. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 13. The amount already deposited by the appellant-insured before the Registry be released in his favour through payee's account cheque. 14. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.