JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. The insurer has assailed the award dated 20.10.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III) Mandi, whereby a compensation amount of Rs.14,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded to the dependants of deceased late Sh. Duni Chand. 2. Bare minimum factual position required to be noticed in the instant appeal is that on 02.06.2009, Sh. Duni Chand was returning to his home after attending his duty in Government Primary School Samkhetar, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi. He boarded Matiz Car bearing Registration No.HP-33-0037 from Village Bhadyara, owned and driven by one Sh. Chaman Lal. After covering a distance of about 200 meters, the vehicle met with an accident. The owner-cum-driver of the Car-Sh. Chaman Lal and Sh. Duni Chand died on the spot. After going through the pleadings and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Tribunal below held that Sh. Duni Chand died on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle’s driver-cum-owner Sh. Chaman Lal. Considering various parameters, the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.14,06,000/- from the legal heirs of Sh. Chaman Lal, owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question, to be indemnified by the appellant. Aggrieved, the assurance company has preferred the instant appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Contentions:- The concise argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that deceased Sh. Duni Chand was an occupant of a private vehicle, which met with an accident. The vehicle was not comprehensively insured by Sh. Chaman Lal (owner-cum-driver) with the appellant. It was only an ‘Act Policy’ purchased by him covering third party basic risk. The deceased as an occupant of the private car would not fall within the definition of third party. The insurance policy not being a Comprehensive Policy and being only an ‘Act Policy’, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner in respect of any liability towards death/injury caused to the occupant of the private car. Whereas, learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 11-legal heirs of owner-cum-driver (Sh. Chaman Lal) supported the award imposing the liability to indemnify the owner upon the Assurance Company. 4. Observations:- 4(i). Whereas, learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 11-legal heirs of owner-cum-driver (Sh. Chaman Lal) supported the award imposing the liability to indemnify the owner upon the Assurance Company. 4. Observations:- 4(i). The question as to whether under a comprehensive/package policy, the insurance company is liable to compensate for death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car, came for adjudication before the Delhi High Court in 2011 ACJ 1415 , titled Yashpal Luthra and another V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. It was a case where the motorcycle in question was insured under a package insurance policy. The insurance company contested the claim petition on the ground that risk of pillion rider on a two-wheeler was not covered in a comprehensive/package insurance policy. The Court examined the Deputy Manager of the Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and he deposed that ‘all the insurance companies are liable to pay compensation in respect of occupants in a private car w.e.f. 25.3.1977 and in respect of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler w.e.f. 2.6.1986 under the Comprehensive/ Package Policy.’ He also deposed that Insurance Company is not liable in respect of pillion rider on a scooter and occupant in a car in respect of Act Policy, which only covers the risk towards third party. Relevant para from the judgment in this regard is extracted hereinafter:- “17. On 26th October, 2009, the Deputy Manager of TAC was examined under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and he deposed that all the Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation in respect of occupants in a private car w.e.f. 25th March, 1977 and in respect of a pillion rider on a twowheeler w.e.f. 2nd June, 1986 under the comprehensive/ package policy. The relevant statement of the Deputy Manager of IRDA (Mr. K.O. Antony) is reproduced hereunder:- "The Insurance Company is not liable in respect of the pillion rider on a scooter and occupant in a car in respect of an ‘Act Only’ policy which only covers the risks towards the Third Party. In respect of Comprehensive Policy, the TAC issued a circular dated 18th March, 1978 instructing all the Insurance Companies to cover the liability towards the occupant in a car w.e.f. 25th March, 1977. In respect of Comprehensive Policy, the TAC issued a circular dated 18th March, 1978 instructing all the Insurance Companies to cover the liability towards the occupant in a car w.e.f. 25th March, 1977. There is no change in position since then and the Insurance Companies are liable in respect of liability towards the occupant of a private car under the Comprehensive Policy, which is now called a Package Policy. On 2nd June, 1986, the TAC issued instructions to all the Insurance Companies to cover the pillion rider on a scooter/motorcycle under the Comprehensive Policy. This position continues to be till date. The Comprehensive Policy is now called a Package Policy. The instructions/circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 continue to be valid and effective till date and all the Insurance Companies are bound to pay compensation in respect of the liability towards a pillion rider on a scooter and occupant in a car under the Comprehensive Policy/Package Policy irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy." It was thus observed that in case of a comprehensive/package policy, the occupants of the private car would be covered and that under the circulars issued by the TAC, the insurance company will not be liable in respect of the pillion rider on a scooter or an occupant in a car in respect of an ‘Act Only Policy’, which only covers risk towards the third party. 4(ii). In 2013 ACJ 199 , titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan and another, an argument was raised on behalf of the claimants that barring the insurer and insured, all others are third parties and, therefore, the deceased/injured has to be deemed to be covered by the policy. It was also urged that the injured (therein) had travelled as an occupant in a private car and, therefore, he has to be treated as third party vis-à-vis the insurer and the insurer was bound to indemnify the owner in respect of third party. The precise argument raised on behalf of the claimant in the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “6. …………………………… In oppugnation, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has proponed that barring the insurer and the insured, all others are third parties and, therefore, he is covered by the policy. The precise argument raised on behalf of the claimant in the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “6. …………………………… In oppugnation, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has proponed that barring the insurer and the insured, all others are third parties and, therefore, he is covered by the policy. It is also urged by him that as he had travelled as an occupant in a private car he is a third party vis-à-vis the insurer and hence, it is bound to indemnify the owner as the risk of the third party is covered.” While answering the arguments advanced by the parties, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered various precedents in the timeline. After considering the judgment passed in Bhagyalakshmi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 148 , in para 15, following was observed in paras 16 and 17:- “16. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Bench had made a distinction between the “Act policy” and “comprehensive policy/package policy”. We respectfully concur with the said distinction. The crux of the matter is what would be the liability of the insurer if the policy is a “comprehensive/package policy”. We are absolutely conscious that the matter has been referred to a larger Bench, but, as is evident, the Bench has also observed that it would depend upon the view of the Tariff Advisory Committee pertaining to enforcement of its decision to cover the liability of an occupant in a vehicle in a “comprehensive/ package policy” regard being had to the contract of insurance. 17. At this stage, it is apposite to note that when the decision in Bhagyalakshmi, (2009) 7 SCC 148 , was rendered, a decision of High Court of Delhi dealing with the view of the Tariff Advisory Committee in respect of “comprehensive/package policy” had not come into the field. We think it apt to refer to the same as it deals with certain factual position which can be of assistance. The High Court of Delhi in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. We think it apt to refer to the same as it deals with certain factual position which can be of assistance. The High Court of Delhi in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 ACJ 1415 (Delhi), after recording the evidence of the competent authority of Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), reproduced a circular dated 16.11.2009 issued by IRDA to CEOs of all the Insurance Companies restating the factual position relating to the liability of Insurance companies in respect of a pillion rider on a twowheeler and occupants in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy. The relevant portion of the circular which has been reproduced by the High Court is as follows…………………………..” Further in para 17, the Apex Court considered the circular, which, inter alia, stated as under:- “IRDA Ref: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/073/11/2009 16.11.2009 To CEOs of all general insurance companies Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupants of a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under standard motor package policy (also called comprehensive policy). Insurers’ attention is drawn to wordings of section II(1)(ii) of standard motor package policy (also called the comprehensive policy) for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced here-under: ………………………………………………….. (ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2.6.1986 (regarding pillion riders in a two-wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. The above circulars make it clear that the insured’s liability in respect of occupant(s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on two-wheeler is covered under the standard motor package policy. A copy each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference.” In paragraphs 19 and 20, taking note of the circulars of IRDA and TAC, it was observed that comprehensive policy is also called as package policy and that all insurance companies are bound to pay compensation in respect of liability towards an occupant in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. Following observations of the Apex Court are material in respect of liability of the insurance company under the Act Policy:- “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. Following observations of the Apex Court are material in respect of liability of the insurance company under the Act Policy:- “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, (2009) 7 SCC 148 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.” The Apex Court thus clearly observed in the above judgment that Act Policy stands on a different footing than a comprehensive/package policy. The liability towards an occupant in a private car under the comprehensive/ package policy would require to be indemnified by the insurance company, but such a situation would not be there in case the policy is an ‘Act Policy’. 4(iii). Reference has also been made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to a judgment dated September 8, 2016, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO (MVA) No.403 of 2010, titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sudershna Devi and others, wherein the policy involved was an Act Only Policy. The deceased was an occupant in the private vehicle. The plea was taken by the appellant-insurance company that his risk was not covered by the terms of the insurance policy. In this background, the Court held as under:- “8. The deceased was an occupant in the private vehicle. The plea was taken by the appellant-insurance company that his risk was not covered by the terms of the insurance policy. In this background, the Court held as under:- “8. At the outset, it may be observed that the insurance can be of two types. One is ‘Comprehensive/Package Policy’ of a private car which clearly covers the insurance of the occupants and there is no need for the Tribunal to go into the question whether Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of the occupants in such a vehicle. Whereas, the other policy is commonly known as ‘Act Policy’ wherein only the risk of the driver is covered, but third party risk of an occupant of a private car is not covered. The fine distinction is set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan and another 2013 ACJ 199 in the following terms:- “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, (2009)7 SCC 148 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.” 10. 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.” 10. Now the question arises as to whether the same is ‘Comprehensive/Package Policy’ or an ‘Act Policy’ and, therefore, it is necessary to advert to the policy itself. A perusal of the policy would indicate that the same is ‘Liable only Policy’ for a private car and only a basic premium of `700/- has been paid and in addition to that an amount of `25/- has been paid towards legal liability of driver to cover insurance of the driver in terms of the driver clause provided for in the policy. Nowhere is the claim of the occupant other than the owner/driver covered under the policy and, therefore, evidently the appellant could not have been asked to indemnify the insured.” In the case in hand also, the insurance policy, Exhibit RW1/C reflects that the vehicle in question was insured under Act Liability Policy. A basic premium of Rs.795/- under TP cover has been paid. No additional premium was paid and no other risks were covered under the policy. The risk of the occupant travelling in the private car was not covered under the policy. Therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred to above, the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are justified that in absence of insuring the occupant in a private vehicle, in absence of paying any premium towards any liability to the occupant in a private vehicle and in absence of having purchased comprehensive/package policy by the owner, the liability to indemnify the owner towards death/injury caused to the occupant in the private vehicle could not have been fastened upon the appellant-insurance company. Learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 11- legal heirs of owner Sh. Chaman Lal has placed reliance upon Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 1, titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s Smt. Anuradha and others, to contend that the said case was also that of an Act Policy and liability of the owner towards the deceased occupant in a private car was fastened upon the insurance company. Chaman Lal has placed reliance upon Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 1, titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s Smt. Anuradha and others, to contend that the said case was also that of an Act Policy and liability of the owner towards the deceased occupant in a private car was fastened upon the insurance company. However, para 14 of the judgment makes it evident that the policy involved in that case was a Comprehensive/Package Policy and not an Act Policy and therefore, after relying upon 2013 ACJ 199 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan and another, the Court held the insurance company liable towards the occupant in the private car. The judgment is clearly distinguishable as the case did not pertain to ‘Act Policy’. For all the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed. The appellant-Assurance Company is exonerated from any liability to pay the award amount in question. The liability to pay the award amount shall be borne by the owner/LRs-respondents No.6 to 11. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.