JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. All these appeals are taken up together arising out of the same accident and having common question of law. 2. Aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Auxi.) in MACP No. 174 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 68,160/-, in MACP No. 175 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 77,392/- and MACP No. 176 of 1997, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,82,000/-, the Insurance Company has come in appeal. 3. An FIR came to be lodged by one Altafhussain Anwarkhan stating that on the relevant date, he had gone to Jaipur and Udaipur for his company's work. On completion of his work, he came back from Udaipur to Ahmedabad. As bus traffic was not working, he along with other passengers hired a jeep from Udaipur having Registration No. RJ-27-C-1351 on rent basis. This jeep started from Udaipur at about 4.00 p.m. in which there were about 10 persons of different districts traveling as passengers. Complainant was sitting on the back side of the jeep. However, he was not knowing the names and addresses of the other passengers. When they have crossed Prantij and were 2 Kms. ahead of this place at about 9.30 p.m., a truck came from the opposite side which was driven at a high speed and collided with the jeep. As a result of which, some of the passengers have lost their lives and while others received injuries. After accident, he was shifted to Himmatnagar Civil Hospital where he regained consciousness. The names of the other passengers traveling in the jeep were (1) Vasudev Viswas and (2) Hasmukhbhai Ramjibhai Vaghari (3) Vijaykumar and Vira Sagi etc. who were also admitted in the hospital having received injuries. The complainant was not knowing the names or addresses of the owner and driver of the jeep nor he had noted down the number of the truck involved in the accident. Different claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal. Tribunal taking into account various aspects of the case, awarded following compensations: "(A) In MACP No. 174 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 68,160/-; (B) In MACP No. 175 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 77,392/-, and; (C) In MACP No. 176 of 1997, awarding compensation of Rs. Different claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal. Tribunal taking into account various aspects of the case, awarded following compensations: "(A) In MACP No. 174 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 68,160/-; (B) In MACP No. 175 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 77,392/-, and; (C) In MACP No. 176 of 1997, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,82,000/-" Aggrieved from this decision, the Insurance Company of the jeep involved in the accident, has come in appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has raised twofold arguments. It has been contended that the award in question could not have been passed against the Insurance Company as there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. According to him, vehicle, at the relevant time, was carrying the passengers for hire and reward basis and the policy does not cover risk of the passengers as the policy possessed by the owner of the jeep, was an 'Act Policy' and premium of only Rs. 255/- was paid by him. Further, it has been argued that in this case, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability of pay and recover. As the claimants riding in the jeep cannot be termed as a third party as the jeep was not comprehensively insured to cover the risk of accident. In support of the submissions, he has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and Another, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 . He has further relied upon the decision passed by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotibala Ghanshyam Joshi and others, reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1681 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the original owner of the jeep has argued that the policy in question cannot be termed as an 'Act Policy' in absence of any evidence in this regard. According to him, it was primary duty of the Insurance Company to have proved the policy by placing on record relevant evidence and in absence of any evidence to prove the policy being an 'Act Policy', the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to pay the compensation. According to him, it was primary duty of the Insurance Company to have proved the policy by placing on record relevant evidence and in absence of any evidence to prove the policy being an 'Act Policy', the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to pay the compensation. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573 and in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 . 6. Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel representing the original claimants has relied upon the arguments of Mr. N.M. Kapadia, counsel who has appeared on behalf of owner of the jeep. 7. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and have also gone through the documents with the help of the counsels. The fact that the jeep in question has met with an accident on 3.10.1993 is not in dispute which is otherwise also proved from the statement of author of the FIR, namely, Altafhussain Anwarkhan who was traveling in the jeep received injuries and has proved the FIR. 8. It is also not disputed that some of the occupants have died while others have received serious injuries and have been admitted in Hospital for treatment at Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar. Further all the occupants of the jeep were traveling as passengers is also not in dispute. 9. The question remains, whether the jeep involved in the accident was comprehensively insured to cover the risk of passengers? 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to the insurance policy which has been duly accepted and perusal of the same shows that insurance policy of the jeep was an 'Act Policy' and the premium of Rs. 240 + Rs. 15 to cover the risk of the driver has been paid. It is established by now that if the Insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident is an 'Act Policy', the passengers traveling in that vehicle will not be treated as third party and their risk is not covered by the Insurance Company. The case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and another (supra) relied upon by counsel for the Insurance Company fully covers this aspect. The case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and another (supra) relied upon by counsel for the Insurance Company fully covers this aspect. Para No. 26 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "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 in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) 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". 11. However, in the present case, there is no doubt that the policy possessed by the owner of the jeep was an 'Act Policy' which stands on a different footing from that of the comprehensive and/or package policy. 12. Learned counsel representing original claimants as well as owner of the jeep disputed the nature of the policy by contending that sufficient evidence to prove this policy is not led by counsel for the Insurance Company. It will be necessary to point out that owner of the vehicle has not filed any written statement before the Tribunal nor any evidence has been laid down in his behalf. 13. On the other hand, Insurance Policy produced by the Insurance Company is duly exhibited without any objection from any side. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that primary onus has been discharged by the Insurance Company by exhibiting such policy. 13. On the other hand, Insurance Policy produced by the Insurance Company is duly exhibited without any objection from any side. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that primary onus has been discharged by the Insurance Company by exhibiting such policy. Once they have produced this policy, the onus shifts on the owner or the occupants of the jeep to show that the policy in question was not applicable in this case. In absence of any evidence in contrary, this Court has to say that the policy possessed by the owner of the jeep was an 'Act Policy' for which, it does not cover the risk of the passengers or other occupiers except driver of the vehicle. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the judgments in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another (supra) and in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (supra), the proposition of law contained in these judgments cannot be disputed. However, these judgments cannot be applicable in the facts of the present case specially under the circumstances when the respondents have failed to file any written statement or turned up in the witness box to rebut the claim of the other side. 16. In view of the aforegoing discussions, these appeals are modified accordingly by setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. At the time of admission of appeals, the Insurance Company has deposited the compensation amount as directed by this Court and is now lying with the Tribunal and any amount, in these cases, lying with the High Court be transmitted to the Tribunal for refunding to the Insurance Company along with the accrued interest, if any. The amounts along with accrued interest be returned back to the Insurance Company forthwith. However, the original claimants shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the jeep who shall be exclusively liable for payment of compensation in these cases. 17. Accordingly, all these appeals are disposed of. Disposed off