JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The Insurance Company has question the judgment and award dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) and Additional District Judge Rajkot passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 155 of 2001. 2. The facts of the cases move in a narrow compass. 3. The deceased Piyushbhai Babubhai Thakkar was riding pillion Motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-3N-5115 on 30th October, 2001. The Motorcycle was of the ownership of the respondent No. 4 herein and it was ensured with the Insurance Company. The Motorcycle met with an accident with ST Bus bearing registration No. GJ-18V-7157. Piyushbhai Babubhai Thakkar suffered injuries and therefore filed a Claim Petition No. 1500 of 2001 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rajkot to recover compensation during the pendency of the Claim Petition, the claimant had left for his heavenly abode on 8th June, 2007. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein being the legal heirs of the deceased prosecuted the claim petition which is partly allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award. 4. I have heard Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the rest of the respondents. 5. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant has raised a singular contention to avoid liability of Insurance Company that the Motorcycle on which the deceased was riding pillion was covered under "Act only Policy". Therefore, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Sudhakaran K.V. And Others, (2008) 7 SCC 428 (ii) National Insurance Company Limited Versus Balakrishnan and Another, (2013) 1 SCC 731 , (iii) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Shimla Versus Tilak Singh and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 404 and unreported decision of this Court dated 1st March, 2016 recorded in First Appeal No. 3873 of 2009 and allied appeal in the Case of United Insurance Company Limited Through Authorise Versus Ambalal Doriabhai Vasava and Ors. The Tribunal ought not to have saddled the liability of payment of compensation to the extent of negligence of the driver of the motorcycle on the appellant. He therefore, urges that the appeal may be allowed and appellant-Insurance Company may be exonerated. 6. Mrs. The Tribunal ought not to have saddled the liability of payment of compensation to the extent of negligence of the driver of the motorcycle on the appellant. He therefore, urges that the appeal may be allowed and appellant-Insurance Company may be exonerated. 6. Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 does not dispute the proposition of law expounded by the Supreme Court and this Court. She submits that the claimants can recover the compensation from the respondent No. 4 to the extent of his liability of contributory negligence. 7. The perusal of the impugned judgment and award reveals that the appellant-Insurance Company had vehemently submitted before the Tribunal that since the policy under which the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding pillion was covered under "Act only Policy", the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellants on the premises that the word "Any Person" appearing in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act includes a pillion rider. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, in my view are not in consonance with the proposition of law expounded by the Supreme Court in the decision relied by Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellants. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishnan (Supra) in paragraph No. 26 is held as under: "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 IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that "a comprehensive/package policy" covers that 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 Bhagyalakshm 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 in Bhagyalakshm 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 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." 9. It is thus vividly clear that the Tribunal has fallen in making error in the liability of payment of compensation on the appellant-Insurance company on the ground that issuance of "Any Person" appeared in Section 147 would cover pillion rider as well. 10. For the reasons above the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Impugned Judgment and award of the Tribunal is hereby modified and the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants under the award. 11. It appears that in compliance of the order of this Court the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited entire awarded compensation in the Tribunal. The awarded compensation, if not released in favour of the claimants, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. 12. After the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant is disbursed in favour of the claimant either in full or in part the same was not be recovered by the appellant from the claimants. The appellant shall be at liberty to recover such compensation from the respondent No. 4-the owner of the motorcycle by instituting appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 13. Registry is directed to remit the Record and Proceedings to the Court below forthwith.