ORDER 1. Instant miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant/ non-claimant No.1 - Amichand (driver & owner of the offending vehicle) assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) cum Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Tribunal'), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 112/2008, titled as Smt. Bhanwari Devi & another Vs. Amichand & another, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants - Smt. Bhanwari Devi & another, under Section 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.8,89,344/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the appellant/non-claimant No.1 was held liable to pay the award amount and the respondent/insurance company was exonerated to pay any compensation. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22.02.2007 in the evening deceased - Rajendra Singh alongwith injured - Ramniwas was coming to their Village Malsiwas from Laxmangarh in a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-23-C-2459, which was being driven by its driver Amichand (appellant) in rash and negligent manner, due to which jeep lost control and dashed a tree of Khejadi and overturned. As a result of which, Ramniwas sustained injuries and Rajendra Singh died. 3. A case/F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant (driver/owner of the alleged jeep), alleging that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-23-C-2459. A claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal, claiming total compensation of Rs.54,48,000/- under the various heads. 4. Appellant, who is driver/owner of the jeep filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made by the claimants and further averred that the alleged accident was not occurred due to his negligence and in alternative pleaded that the jeep was insured with the respondent/insurance-company. 5. Respondent No.3/insurance-company filed reply to the claim petition and raised a specific objection for the breach of the policy condition and denied its liability. 6. On completion of pleadings, the Tribunal framed as many as three issues. On behalf of claimants, AW-1 Mohan Singh himself and AW-2 Ramniwas were examined and documents Exhibit/1 to Exhibit/51 were exhibited. Respondent No.3/insurance-company examined NAW-1 Chhote Lal and exhibited documents as NA/1 and NA/2. 7. 6. On completion of pleadings, the Tribunal framed as many as three issues. On behalf of claimants, AW-1 Mohan Singh himself and AW-2 Ramniwas were examined and documents Exhibit/1 to Exhibit/51 were exhibited. Respondent No.3/insurance-company examined NAW-1 Chhote Lal and exhibited documents as NA/1 and NA/2. 7. After hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2012, awarded a sum of Rs.8,89,344/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/non-claimant No.1 has submitted that admittedly, the insurance-company has charged premium for the third party and the deceased and injured were fully covered within the definition of third party. Counsel has further submitted that there is no material to infer that the deceased and injured were travelling for hire or reward, therefore, they cannot be considered as passengers and in this view of the matter, when third party risk is covered, the insurance-company is liable to pay compensation. Lastly, counsel has argued that there was no breach of the policy but the insurance-company has erroneously been exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna Vs. Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2018) A.I.R. (S.C.) 3726. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/insurance-company, has submitted that there is only an ?act policy' and no additional premium is charged for passengers and premium is only paid for the third party. Thus, there was a breach of the insurance policy and the insurance-company has rightly been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Insurance-company, has placed reliance upon the following judgments: - "1. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Gulbarga and Others Vs. Hanmantha s/o Bhimaraya & Others, (Karnataka) (Kalaburagi Bench), reported in 2020 A.C.J. 98. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur Vs. Smt. Hudi & Others, reported in 2014 (1) R.L.W. 656 (Rajasthan). 3. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Lilabai Shrimant Misal & Others (Bombay) (Aurangabad Bench), reported in 2015 A.C.J. 2098. 4. K. Koushik and Ors. Vs. Sandeep and Ors., reported in 2019 A.C.J. 367." 12. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur Vs. Smt. Hudi & Others, reported in 2014 (1) R.L.W. 656 (Rajasthan). 3. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Lilabai Shrimant Misal & Others (Bombay) (Aurangabad Bench), reported in 2015 A.C.J. 2098. 4. K. Koushik and Ors. Vs. Sandeep and Ors., reported in 2019 A.C.J. 367." 12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award and the material made available on record. 13. AW/1 Mohan Singh, claimant stated in his cross-examination that Amichand did not accept any fare from Rajendra Singh sitting in the jeep. It was further stated that he was not in a position to say whether his son had paid any fare, as he was not present at the spot. 14. AW/2 Ramniwas admitted in his cross-examination that he had not hired the jeep. Instead, it belonged to his cousin (son of bhua). 15. In the affidavit filed by NAW/1 - Chhotelal, Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Sikar, it is stated that the insurance-company issued 'Act only' Policy for the vehicle, in question. As per documents, deceased and injured were travelling in the back seat of the private Jeep. Therefore, the deceased and injured neither fall into the category of third party nor any premium was paid on behalf of deceased and injured for the purpose of insurance to the insurance-company. Hence, due to the breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, the insurance-company is not liable to pay the compensation. 16. NAW/1 - Chhotelal in his cross-examination stated that he is unable to clarify about the Section in which policy was issued in which it was mentioned that the relatives and family members can travel in the insured vehicle. He further stated that he has no knowledge of the fact that deceased and injured are relatives of Amichand or not. It is true that he has not brought proposal letter containing terms and conditions, which is filled-in by the insurance proposer. It is correct that it is nowhere mentioned in Exhibit-NA/1 that insurance-company would not be liable to pay for the relatives and friends of insured persons, who are travelling in the insured vehicle but it is mentioned in the conditions attached with insurance policy. It is correct that it is nowhere mentioned in Exhibit-NA/1 that insurance-company would not be liable to pay for the relatives and friends of insured persons, who are travelling in the insured vehicle but it is mentioned in the conditions attached with insurance policy. It is wrong to say that insurance-company would be liable to pay compensation, if the family members and friends of the owner of the vehicle travel in the vehicle. 17. From the appreciation of above evidence, it is clear that there is no evidence to infer that the deceased and injured were travelling for hire or reward but it was proved that the deceased and injured were travelling in an offending vehicle as passengers. 18. Insurance Policy and Insurance Policy with Condition marked as Exhibit/6 and Exhibit/NA-1. Insurance Policy (Exhibit/6) was for 'Private Car - Liability Only Policy'. At page No.2 of Insurance Policy with Condition (Exhibit-NA/1) shows amount of premium Rs.700/-collected as "Gross O.D. & T.P." (Own Damage & Third Party). 19. Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the case of Shamanna(Supra) fails to advance the case of the appellant, as the present case is based on different facts. 20. Judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Insurance-company in the case of Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Gulbarga & Others Vs. Hanmantha s/o Bhimaraya & Others, (supra), Karnataka High Court observed as under :- "12. Further, it is crystal clear that when 'Act policy' is issued in respect of private jeep, the risk of the occupants/ inmates/passengers is not covered by the policy, unless additional premium is collected and that the risk of the third party alone is covered under the said policy. It is further made clear that where the additional premium is collected to loading the risk of third party only, it does not mean to cover the risk of the inmates of the private jeep. In the present case, the copy of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle is produced at Ex.R-2. This policy goes to show that it is issued as 'Liability Only Policy' for Zone B private jeep. No additional premium is collected to cover the risk of the inmates but an extra loading premium is collected for Rs.700/-. In the present case, the copy of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle is produced at Ex.R-2. This policy goes to show that it is issued as 'Liability Only Policy' for Zone B private jeep. No additional premium is collected to cover the risk of the inmates but an extra loading premium is collected for Rs.700/-. This does not mean that it was collected to cover the risk of the inmates as held in the above referred decision. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted in the course of his arguments that the insurer has not led any evidence in the case even after remand of the matter. But the record shows the insurer has got examined its Assistant Manager Sri Shireddy Bheemanna S/o Hanmanthraya as RW-2 and he was examined on 25.02.2012 before the Tribunal. He has deposed in clear terms that the policy issued in the case is "Liability Only Policy" and it does not cover the risk of the occupants of the vehicle. He has also deposed that vehicle was used for the commercial purpose at the time of accident and as such, insurance company has to be exonerated from the liability. Therefore, in view of evidence of RW-2 and Exhibit R-2, being the 'Act Policy' or 'Liable Only Policy', the insurer cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the inmates of the private jeep, since the risk of the inmates is not covered under the policy." (Emphasis supplied). 21. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur Vs. Smt. Hudi & Others, (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, observed as under :- "16. Coming to the issue of non-coverage of risk of passenger on account of the policy issued by the appellant being 'act only' policy, a look at the policy (Exhibit-A/1) would reveal that the said policy clearly indicates 'Private Car Policy A Liability Only' and nowhere any additional premium covering risk of passenger has been recovered by the appellant Insurance Company. The law on the issue regarding coverage of risk in case of passengers in a 'act only' policy stands settled in the case of .United India Insurance Co. The law on the issue regarding coverage of risk in case of passengers in a 'act only' policy stands settled in the case of .United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh & Ors: (2006)4 SCC 404 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the policy is a statutory policy or an act only policy, a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle would not be covered for any bodily injury or death under the policy of insurance." (Emphasis supplied). 22. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Lilabai Shrimant Misal & Others, (supra), Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) observed as under:- "16) From the aforesaid discussion it can be said that it is settled law that if no premium is paid in respect of passenger of a private car, there will not be coverage to the risk to them. When there is no coverage of risk, no premium is paid, liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company to pay compensation. (Emphasis supplied) 17) The discussion made above shows that the point of pay and recover does not arise in the case like the present one. In the case reported as (2004) 3 SCC 297 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh) the provisions of Sections 149(1), 149(4) and 149(5) of the Act are interpreted and the circumstances in which Insurance Company can be made to pay are discussed. That case also does not show that when there is no insurance cover like in the present case, the Insurance Company can be made to pay first. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that the Tribunal has committed error in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the owner in the present case. To that extent, the decision of the Tribunal needs to be set aside." 23. In the case of K. Koushik and Ors. Vs. Sandeep and Ors., (Supra), Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) observed as under:- "11. In the case of Mahadev Pandurang Patil supra, the division bench of this Court has categorically held that the occupants/passengers/inmates of a private vehicle do not fall within the definition of the word 'third party'. The reason is Section 147 of the Act does not require a policy to cover the risk to passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. The reason is Section 147 of the Act does not require a policy to cover the risk to passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. Therefore, the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of the vehicle, passengers in such private vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another (MANU/SC/0987/2012 : 2013 ACJ 199 ) has held that third party risk of an occupant of a private car is not covered under an Act policy. In the case of Lakshmi supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on Asha Rani's case and Tilak Singh's case observed that Circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers is applicable only in case of comprehensive policy. In the case of Act policy, the Insurer owed no liability and it did not cover the risk of the occupant i.e., the pillion rider." (emphasis supplied) 24. In the present case, the copy of the insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle is produced as Exhibit/6. This policy goes to show that it is issued as ?Private Car - Liability Only Policy' and the copy of the 'Insurance Policy with Condition' in respect of the offending vehicle is produced as Exhibit/NA-1, which shows that Rs.700/- amount of premium collected as "Gross O.D. & T.P." (Own Damage and Third Party). The law on the issue regarding coverage of risk in case of passengers in an 'Act Only' Policy/Private Car -Liability Only Policy' stands settled. As per aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/insurance-company, wherein the Court held that where the policy is an ?Act Only' Policy/'Private Car - Liability Only Policy', inmates/passengers/gratuitous passengers in a private vehicle would not be covered for any bodily injury or death under the policy of insurance. If no premium is paid in respect of passenger of a private car, there will not be coverage to the risk to them. When there is no coverage of risk, no premium is paid, liability cannot be fastened on the insurance-company to pay compensation. Occupants/passengers/ inmates of a private vehicle do not fall within the definition of words 'Third Party'. 25. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in this appeal. When there is no coverage of risk, no premium is paid, liability cannot be fastened on the insurance-company to pay compensation. Occupants/passengers/ inmates of a private vehicle do not fall within the definition of words 'Third Party'. 25. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.