JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Fao No. 352 of 2017, and, FAO No. 419 of 2017, are respectively, reared by the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, and, by the insurer of the offending vehicle, against, the award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., upon, MACP No. 189-N/2 of 2013, (i) where through, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.13,63,296/-, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, thereon interest, at, the rate of 7.5% per annum also stood levied, and, it was ordered to commence, from, the date of petition till realization, of, the compensation amount. 2. Succinctly, the submission, of, the learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved insurer, of, the offending vehicle, whereupon whom, the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, (i) is comprised, in, the, legality, of, adoptions, by the learned tribunal, of, the principle of "pay, and, recover", where through, the, initial disbursing liability, vis-a-vis, the determined compensation amount, was saddled, upon, the insurer, and, thereafter a right was reserved, to it, to, upon, its deposit, and, release(s), vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, hence seek recovery(ies) thereof, in accordance with law, hence, from the owner, and, driver of the offending vehicle, (ii) and, is, grooved, in the contract of insurance, executed inter se the insurer, and, insured, and, borne in Ex. RW1/A, being, a, "liability only policy, hence covering, risk, of, driver only, and, its not covering the risk, of, the occupants, of, the offending car, and, when at the relevant time, the deceased hence was travelling, as, a gratuitous passenger, in, the offending vehicle, evidently registered, as, a non passenger vehicle, (iii) rather, upon demise, of, the afore evident gratuitous passenger, hence, travelling, in, the afore category of vehicle, would not, enable the burdening, of, the apposite indementificatory liability, on any front, visa-vis, the insurer. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has further contended, (iv) that, since the deceased, though, was an occupant of the offending vehicle, and, was not, a third party, and, upon, the afore prime factum, being, coagulated, with, the, other evident fact, that, with the apt policy, standing, evidently, executed inter se the insurer, and, the insured, and, as borne in Ex. RW1/A, rather covering the apt risk(s) of, the, driver-cum-owner, and, its not covering, the, risk of any gratuitous passenger(s) hence carried therein, (v) thereupon, in consonance with the verdict, pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan, and, another, (2013) ACJ 199, the relevant paragraph No. 21 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- "21. 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. 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." (vi) the insurer of the offending vehicle rather being completely exculpated, vis-a-vis, the fastening, of, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, and, he has also further contended, that, the adoption, of, the principle of "pay and recover" by the learned tribunal, is, also legally frail, (vii) given its recoursing being legally available, only upon, there being, a, fundamental breach, of, the terms, and, conditions, of, insurance policy, (viii) whereas, the contract, of, insurance executed inter se the insurer, and, the insured, limiting the apt risk contractual liability, only, vis-a-vis, the owner-cum-driver, of, the offending vehicle, and, not extending, vis-a-vis, the, risk(s), of, occupants or gratuitous passenger, as, borne in the offending vehicle,6(ix) thereupon, with, the, afore contractual ouster(s) obviously not covering any risk, of, the apt gratuitous passenger, hence, aboard the offending vehicle, (x) hence, the contract of insurance, being on, all fronts remaining unattracted, vis-a-vis, the afore category of gratuitous passengers, and, also hence, the afore contractual ouster, being not construable, to, constitute a fundamental breach of the terms, and, conditions of the insurance policy, it, being not included therein, rather it being a policy, hence, not explicitly covering the risks, of, the gratuitous occupants, borne in the offending vehicle, and, reiteratedly, he, contends, that, the adoption, of, the afore mechanism, by the learned tribunal, being unbefitting. 3. 3. The afore submission has immense vigour, and, hence, is accepted, and, in view of the afore, the insurer is completely, and, explicitly, exculpated, vis-a-vis, the fastening, of, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, and, also the principle, of, "pay and recover", is not recourseable nor this Court upholds, the, operative portion of the verdict, recorded by the learned tribunal, wherein, the insurer, is, initially saddled, with, the apposite indemnificatory liability, and, thereafter a right has been preserved, vis-a-vis, it, to, upon its apt release, it, through recoursing apt legal mechanisms, ensure, its being recovered from the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle. 4. In FAO No. 352 of 2017, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant/owner, of, the offending vehicle, has contended with much vigour, before this Court, (i) that the computation of per diem wages, of, the deceased, hence, by the learned tribunal, rather in a sum of Rs.300/-, and, derived from his hitherto avocation, as a mason, are, in conflict with the then prevailing minimum per diem wages, as, disburseable , vis-a-vis, the afore category, of, workman, (ii) given theirs being therein rather borne in a sum of Rs.200/-. Consequently, he contends that the afore computation, being amenable, for interference, by this Court. However, the afore submission, is grounded, by the evident factum, of, one of the employer(s), of, the deceased workman, while stepping into the witness box as PW-3, in his deposition, comprised in Ex.PW3/A, rather making a firm echoing, (iii) vis-a-vis, his engaging, the deceased as a mason, and, his defraying wages to him, at, the rate of Rs.300/- per day. The afore deposition, borne in Ex.PW3/A, remains unshattered, vis-a-vis, its vigour, (iv) thereupon, hence credence, is, meteable thereto, (v) and, when the engagement, by, private employers, of, the services, of, a mason do not, enjoin, upon, them, to, liquidate wages, vis-a-vis, them, hence, at par with the minimum wages qua therewith, as, prescribed in the apposite government notification, as, hold force, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap, rather when, the, normal wages, in private employment, are, usually higher than the one reflected in the apt notification, (vi) thereupon, the assaying made upon, the apt notification relied, upon, by the learned counsel, for the aggrieved registered owner of the offending vehicle, for hence, thereupon, his, striving, to, reduce the per diem wages of the deceased, from his apt avocation, is, a meritless endeavour, and, is rejected. 5. 5. Furthermore, the learned counsel, appearing for the registered owner of the offending vehicle, has also made, a vehement submission before this court, that, with Bimla Devi, in her cross-examination, testifying, vis-a-vis, theirs being not dependent, upon, the income, of, the deceased, (i) thereupon, the computation(s), of, the afore per mensem wages, dehors the factum, qua in the impugned award, no loss, of, dependency being awarded, vis-a-vis, the deceased's purported earnings, from, agriculture, rather also not constituting, the apt, parameter, for, computing, the, loss of annual dependency, hence, being entailed, upon, his successors-in-interest. However, in making the afore submission, the learned counsel, appearing for the registered owner of the offending vehicle, has read, the afore deposition, in a piece meal, manner, and, has strived, to draw, untenable leverage therefrom, (ii) his being grossly unmindful, vis-a-vis, the deceased, from his employment, during his life time, as a mason, drawing, a sum of Rs.300/- per day, (iii) and, when there is no further evidence on record qua the afore derivation of income, hence, by the deceased from his avocation, as a mason, being not added, as, an apt supplement, to the income, if any, derived by his surviving spouse Bimla Devi, from other sources, nor with any evidence, standing, hence, adduced qua the source, of, afore income, and, also qua it, fully working towards, the, upkeep, and, maintenance of his successors-in-interest, (iv) thereupon, the afore echoings made in the cross-examination of Bimla Devi, are, of no consequence, also reiteratedly when there is no further evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore derivation of income, being sufficient, to, cover, all the expenses of their livelihood, and, also for covering the expenses, of, their upkeep, and, maintenance, and, also when, there is no evidence adduced, vis-a-vis, the afore derived income, during, his life time hence by the deceased, not, being any means, of, their livelihood, (v) thereupon, the afore per mensem income of the deceased, as derived, during, his life time, is to be concluded, to be an income, whereupon, his successors-in-interest, rather were dependent. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company bearing FAO No.419 of 2017 is allowed, whereas, FAO No. 352 of 2017, instituted by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, is dismissed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company bearing FAO No.419 of 2017 is allowed, whereas, FAO No. 352 of 2017, instituted by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, is dismissed. Consequently, the award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., upon, MACP No. 189-N/2 of 2013, is modified to the extent, that, liability to indemnify the compensation amount, shall be of the registered owner of the offending vehicle i.e. of one Rahul Sood only, and, the, operative portion of the award impugned before this Court, wherein, the learned tribunal, has, adopted the principle of "pay and recover", is, set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Fao No. 352 of 2017, and, FAO No. 419 of 2017, are respectively, reared by the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, and, by the insurer of the offending vehicle, against, the award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., upon, MACP No. 189-N/2 of 2013, (i) where through, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.13,63,296/-, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, thereon interest, at, the rate of 7.5% per annum also stood levied, and, it was ordered to commence, from, the date of petition till realization, of, the compensation amount. 2. Succinctly, the submission, of, the learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved insurer, of, the offending vehicle, whereupon whom, the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, (i) is comprised, in, the, legality, of, adoptions, by the learned tribunal, of, the principle of "pay, and, recover", where through, the, initial disbursing liability, vis-a-vis, the determined compensation amount, was saddled, upon, the insurer, and, thereafter a right was reserved, to it, to, upon, its deposit, and, release(s), vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, hence seek recovery(ies) thereof, in accordance with law, hence, from the owner, and, driver of the offending vehicle, (ii) and, is, grooved, in the contract of insurance, executed inter se the insurer, and, insured, and, borne in Ex. RW1/A, being, a, "liability only policy, hence covering, risk, of, driver only, and, its not covering the risk, of, the occupants, of, the offending car, and, when at the relevant time, the deceased hence was travelling, as, a gratuitous passenger, in, the offending vehicle, evidently registered, as, a non passenger vehicle, (iii) rather, upon demise, of, the afore evident gratuitous passenger, hence, travelling, in, the afore category of vehicle, would not, enable the burdening, of, the apposite indementificatory liability, on any front, visa-vis, the insurer. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has further contended, (iv) that, since the deceased, though, was an occupant of the offending vehicle, and, was not, a third party, and, upon, the afore prime factum, being, coagulated, with, the, other evident fact, that, with the apt policy, standing, evidently, executed inter se the insurer, and, the insured, and, as borne in Ex. RW1/A, rather covering the apt risk(s) of, the, driver-cum-owner, and, its not covering, the, risk of any gratuitous passenger(s) hence carried therein, (v) thereupon, in consonance with the verdict, pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan, and, another, (2013) ACJ 199, the relevant paragraph No. 21 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- "21. 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. 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." (vi) the insurer of the offending vehicle rather being completely exculpated, vis-a-vis, the fastening, of, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, and, he has also further contended, that, the adoption, of, the principle of "pay and recover" by the learned tribunal, is, also legally frail, (vii) given its recoursing being legally available, only upon, there being, a, fundamental breach, of, the terms, and, conditions, of, insurance policy, (viii) whereas, the contract, of, insurance executed inter se the insurer, and, the insured, limiting the apt risk contractual liability, only, vis-a-vis, the owner-cum-driver, of, the offending vehicle, and, not extending, vis-a-vis, the, risk(s), of, occupants or gratuitous passenger, as, borne in the offending vehicle,6(ix) thereupon, with, the, afore contractual ouster(s) obviously not covering any risk, of, the apt gratuitous passenger, hence, aboard the offending vehicle, (x) hence, the contract of insurance, being on, all fronts remaining unattracted, vis-a-vis, the afore category of gratuitous passengers, and, also hence, the afore contractual ouster, being not construable, to, constitute a fundamental breach of the terms, and, conditions of the insurance policy, it, being not included therein, rather it being a policy, hence, not explicitly covering the risks, of, the gratuitous occupants, borne in the offending vehicle, and, reiteratedly, he, contends, that, the adoption, of, the afore mechanism, by the learned tribunal, being unbefitting. 3. 3. The afore submission has immense vigour, and, hence, is accepted, and, in view of the afore, the insurer is completely, and, explicitly, exculpated, vis-a-vis, the fastening, of, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, and, also the principle, of, "pay and recover", is not recourseable nor this Court upholds, the, operative portion of the verdict, recorded by the learned tribunal, wherein, the insurer, is, initially saddled, with, the apposite indemnificatory liability, and, thereafter a right has been preserved, vis-a-vis, it, to, upon its apt release, it, through recoursing apt legal mechanisms, ensure, its being recovered from the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle. 4. In FAO No. 352 of 2017, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant/owner, of, the offending vehicle, has contended with much vigour, before this Court, (i) that the computation of per diem wages, of, the deceased, hence, by the learned tribunal, rather in a sum of Rs.300/-, and, derived from his hitherto avocation, as a mason, are, in conflict with the then prevailing minimum per diem wages, as, disburseable , vis-a-vis, the afore category, of, workman, (ii) given theirs being therein rather borne in a sum of Rs.200/-. Consequently, he contends that the afore computation, being amenable, for interference, by this Court. However, the afore submission, is grounded, by the evident factum, of, one of the employer(s), of, the deceased workman, while stepping into the witness box as PW-3, in his deposition, comprised in Ex.PW3/A, rather making a firm echoing, (iii) vis-a-vis, his engaging, the deceased as a mason, and, his defraying wages to him, at, the rate of Rs.300/- per day. The afore deposition, borne in Ex.PW3/A, remains unshattered, vis-a-vis, its vigour, (iv) thereupon, hence credence, is, meteable thereto, (v) and, when the engagement, by, private employers, of, the services, of, a mason do not, enjoin, upon, them, to, liquidate wages, vis-a-vis, them, hence, at par with the minimum wages qua therewith, as, prescribed in the apposite government notification, as, hold force, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap, rather when, the, normal wages, in private employment, are, usually higher than the one reflected in the apt notification, (vi) thereupon, the assaying made upon, the apt notification relied, upon, by the learned counsel, for the aggrieved registered owner of the offending vehicle, for hence, thereupon, his, striving, to, reduce the per diem wages of the deceased, from his apt avocation, is, a meritless endeavour, and, is rejected. 5. 5. Furthermore, the learned counsel, appearing for the registered owner of the offending vehicle, has also made, a vehement submission before this court, that, with Bimla Devi, in her cross-examination, testifying, vis-a-vis, theirs being not dependent, upon, the income, of, the deceased, (i) thereupon, the computation(s), of, the afore per mensem wages, dehors the factum, qua in the impugned award, no loss, of, dependency being awarded, vis-a-vis, the deceased's purported earnings, from, agriculture, rather also not constituting, the apt, parameter, for, computing, the, loss of annual dependency, hence, being entailed, upon, his successors-in-interest. However, in making the afore submission, the learned counsel, appearing for the registered owner of the offending vehicle, has read, the afore deposition, in a piece meal, manner, and, has strived, to draw, untenable leverage therefrom, (ii) his being grossly unmindful, vis-a-vis, the deceased, from his employment, during his life time, as a mason, drawing, a sum of Rs.300/- per day, (iii) and, when there is no further evidence on record qua the afore derivation of income, hence, by the deceased from his avocation, as a mason, being not added, as, an apt supplement, to the income, if any, derived by his surviving spouse Bimla Devi, from other sources, nor with any evidence, standing, hence, adduced qua the source, of, afore income, and, also qua it, fully working towards, the, upkeep, and, maintenance of his successors-in-interest, (iv) thereupon, the afore echoings made in the cross-examination of Bimla Devi, are, of no consequence, also reiteratedly when there is no further evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore derivation of income, being sufficient, to, cover, all the expenses of their livelihood, and, also for covering the expenses, of, their upkeep, and, maintenance, and, also when, there is no evidence adduced, vis-a-vis, the afore derived income, during, his life time hence by the deceased, not, being any means, of, their livelihood, (v) thereupon, the afore per mensem income of the deceased, as derived, during, his life time, is to be concluded, to be an income, whereupon, his successors-in-interest, rather were dependent. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company bearing FAO No.419 of 2017 is allowed, whereas, FAO No. 352 of 2017, instituted by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, is dismissed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company bearing FAO No.419 of 2017 is allowed, whereas, FAO No. 352 of 2017, instituted by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, is dismissed. Consequently, the award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., upon, MACP No. 189-N/2 of 2013, is modified to the extent, that, liability to indemnify the compensation amount, shall be of the registered owner of the offending vehicle i.e. of one Rahul Sood only, and, the, operative portion of the award impugned before this Court, wherein, the learned tribunal, has, adopted the principle of "pay and recover", is, set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.