JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and award dated 25.10.2008 rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & AMACT, Haveri in MVC No.33/2006, whereby the compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- is awarded with 6% interest thereon. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant taking me through the LCR more particularly Ex.R-1 marked in the evidence of RW-1 who was an official of the Insurance company submits that no liability could have been fastened on the company since the said Ex.R-1 is only an “Act policy” as contra distinguished from a “Comprehensive policy”. He brings to my notice a decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 , para 26 of which reads 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 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 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 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.” 3. The counsel for the respondent claimant vehemently contended that the Insurance company having accepted Rs. 500/- from the Insured as additional sum, the policy in question automatically metamorphozis into a comprehensive policy because of the existence of the substratum and therefore the Court should treat Ex.R-1 as being a comprehensive policy, its format not withstanding. 4. The counsel for the respondent claimant vehemently contended that the Insurance company having accepted Rs. 500/- from the Insured as additional sum, the policy in question automatically metamorphozis into a comprehensive policy because of the existence of the substratum and therefore the Court should treat Ex.R-1 as being a comprehensive policy, its format not withstanding. 4. A contract of Insurance although arises under the law of contract, still it is regulated by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made there under. The Act or the Rules do not contain any provision to the effect that once extra amount is taken by the Insurance Company it should be presumed to be extra premium and further on such payment being received the “Act Policy” automatically gets metamorphosed into a comprehensive policy. The contention of the counsel for the claimant if accepted it amounts to re-writing the contract of Insurance which is not permissible to the Courts. Ordinarily, in the absence of statutory authority, a bargain between the parties worked out within the realm of liberty cannot be meddled with by the adjudicatory bodies. No decision of any Court is cited before me in support of the submission made by the counsel for the claimant. Therefore, I accept the contentions of the appellant Insurance Company and reject the per contra contentions of the claimants. 5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and award of the Tribunal below are modified to the effect that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount under the impugned award. 6. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company in the registry of this Court as a statutory pre-condition for maintaining the appeal is ordered to be refunded to the company. This Judgment however will not come in the way of the Cross objector prosecuting his case for enhancement of the compensation qua the respondent owner of the vehicle.