JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant appeal is being decided finally at the stage of admission. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants (non-claimants before the Tribunal) for assailing the judgment and award dated 19.10.2019 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Merta in MAC No.25/2019 whereby, the claim application filed by the respondent No.1 Mohan Ram (injured-claimant) under Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was accepted and while awarding damages to the tune of Rs.4,25,820/-to the claimant, the respondent-Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award and the appellants herein being the driver and owner respectively of the Trailer No.RJ19 GE8007 involved in the accident were held responsible to satisfy the award. The appellants herein have approached this Court by way of this appeal so as to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal at Paras No.29 to 32 of the impugned award whereby, the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability and the appellants herein were held jointly and severally responsible to bear the award. 3. Learned counsel Shri Trivedi representing the appellants vehemently and fervently contended that as per the impugned judgment, the Insurance Policy was a package policy. The injured-claimant was sitting in the police Jeep No.RJ-21 UA-8851 upon being found to be roaming around in a suspicious condition. The Trailer No.RJ-19-JE-8007 insured with the respondent No.2-New India Insurance Company collided with the police jeep causing hurt to the claimant Mohan Ram, who had to be hospitalized and treated for his extensive injuries. Shri Mohan Ram filed the claim application which was allowed in the above terms. 4. He urged that findings recorded by the Tribunal at Paras Nos. 29 to 32 of the impugned award which are reproduced in verbatim herein below for the sake of ready reference are totally illegal and perverse. ^^29- okgu Án'kZ&16 ls fnukad 20-11-2016 ls 19-11-2017 dh vof/k ds fy, vÁkFkhZ la[;k 2 gjhjke ds uke ls chfer gSA ?kVuk 07-04-2017 dh gSA ftlesa fuEu fjLd doj dh xbZ gSA Limit of the amount the Company’s Liability Under Section II 1(i) in respect of any one accident: as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Limit of the amount of the Company’s Liability Under Section II 1(i) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: Up to 7,50,000. Limit of the amount of the Company’s Liability Under Section II 1(i) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: Up to 7,50,000. 30- okgu r`rh; i{kdkj ds fy, chfer gS fdUrq blesa dsoy fuEu dks doj fd;k x;k gSA LL to persons employed for open and/or mains and/or loading and/or unloading, L1 to paid driver conductor cleaner employed for open. bles vlhfer nkf;Ro doj ugha fd;k x;k gSA ftu O;fDr;ksa dh fjLd doj dh xbZ gS muesa vkgr ugha vkrkA 2]65]000@& :i;s dh vksŒMhŒ & oSfDrd bdkbZ dh {kfr dh fjLd doj dh xbZ gS tks esjs fopkj esa lEifr ls lacaf/kr gSA 31- Á'uxr Ádj.k esa lEifr dh {kfr dk ekeyk ugha gSA ftu O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa fjLd doj dh xbZ gS muesa vkgr ugha vkrk gSA dsoy pkyd o [kyklh dh fjLd doj dh xbZ gSA vr% chek dEiuh Áfrdj vnk;xh ds nk;h ugha gSA 32- bl Ádkj mijksDr foospukuqlkj ÁkFkhZ eksgujke 4]25]820@& :i;s v[kjs pkj yk[k iPphl gtkj vkB lkS chl ek= Dyse ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr djus dh fnukad 08-03-2019 ls olwyh rd 6 Áfr'kr lk/kkj.k C;kt dh nj ls C;kt lfgr vÁkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ls i`Fkdr% o la;qDr% ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA ifj.kker% ;g fook|d ÁkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA 5. During the course of arguments the appellants’ counsel Shri Trivedi, presented to the Court, the vehicle insurance policy got issued by the owner Hari Ram after paying premium for a commercial vehicle package policy. The Tribunal referred to the certain clauses of the insurance policy, which covers limited liability of the persons employed for operation and/or maintenance and/or loading and/or unloading, limited to paid driver, conductor and cleaner employed for operation of the vehicle. In addition to this, the insurance policy also provides basic TP i.e. third party cover. 6. Shri Trivedi urged that the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award while exonerating Insurance Company from the liability to cover the risk of the third party i.e. the claimant, is absolutely illegal, perverse and arbitrary. 7. On a plain reading of the statutory provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the language of the insurance policy itself, it is clear that no vehicle insurance policy can be issued which does not cover the risk of a third party. 7. On a plain reading of the statutory provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the language of the insurance policy itself, it is clear that no vehicle insurance policy can be issued which does not cover the risk of a third party. He thus urges that the findings recorded by the Tribunal at Paras Nos.29 to 32 of the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the Insurance Company should be jointly and severally held responsible with the appellants to satisfy the award. On these submissions, Shri Trivedi craved acceptance of the appeal. 8. Shri Jagdish Vyas, Advocate representing the Insurance Company candidly and fairly accepted that the Tribunal’s view while exonerating the Insurance Company is absolutely perverse and arbitrary. He also supported the argument of the appellant’s counsel that there can be no vehicle insurance policy which does not cover the risk of a third party. He thus implored the Court to remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration on this aspect. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as the insurance policy presented for perusal by Shri Trivedi. 10. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the parameters for liability under the insurance policies. The relevant provision thereof i.e. (1)(a) and (1)(b)(i) are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; 11. On a plain reading of the statutory provision governing the controversy, it is clear as daylight that any policy of motor vehicle insurance has to be one which insures/indemnifies (the insured) of loss which may be incurred in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Thus, this statutory provision envisages that the insurance policy shall indemnify the insured against the death or bodily injury to “any person”. Any person would definitely mean a person who is not an occupant of a vehicle in the capacity of a passenger that is to make it clear “a third party”. Thus, the Statute requires that any insurance policy would have to cover the risk of a third party. In the case at hand, the top column Page No.2 of the insurance policy, the schedule of premium to be paid by the insured provides for basic third party cover (basic TP cover). Thus, even as per the insurance policy, a person who is not present in the insured vehicle (i.e. “third person”), if is injured by collusion with the same in a public place then his liability would definitely be covered under the insurance policy. Manifestly, thus, the Tribunal acted with gross illegality and perversity while exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to bear the award. This view is fortified from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. [(2003 ) 2 SCC 223] and this Court’s judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hamu Ram & Ors. [2004 RAR 308 (Raj.)]. 12. Accordingly, the findings so recorded by the Tribunal in Para Nos.29 to 32 the impugned award to the extent, the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability and the appellants being the driver and owner respectively of the insured vehicle were held liable to bear the award are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide this aspect afresh. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide this aspect afresh. It is made clear that the statutory right of either the claimant or the Insurance Company to challenge the impugned award for ventilating their grievances shall not be prejudiced or hampered by this remand order and they shall be free to ventilate their grievances, if any, by taking recourse of suitable proceedings as per law. The matter shall be listed before the Tribunal on 30.01.2020. The appellants and the representative of the Insurance Company shall remain present before the Tribunal on that day. The claimant shall be notified and thereafter the Tribunal shall rehear the parties on the aforesaid aspect of liability and pass a fresh judgment to that extent within a period of thirty days thereafter. 12. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No order as to costs.