JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and award dated 21st April 2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.740 of 2008 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary - II), Additional District Judge, Mahesana, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the exoneration of the Insurance Company. 2. The original claim of the claimant was for Rs.1,00,000/-. As against that, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,160/- as just compensation. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 9th October 2008, the claimant was going on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-2AH- 1638 as pillion rider, which was being driven and owned by his brother i.e. the opponent No.1. However, due to speed, the motorcycle slipped, wherein the claimant sustained grievous injuries, and thereby, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be preferred before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received in the vehicle accident. 4. The learned Tribunal, after having considered the evidence on record, held that the claimant received injuries due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the motor cycle. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to award compensation under the various heads. The full and final compensation came to be awarded at Rs.1,35,160/-. However, considering the Insurance Policy, which is in the nature of a package policy and having found no additional premium paid, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the appellant – original claimant is here before this Court by way of present appeal challenging, inter alia, exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability. 6. I have heard Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. 7. Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, has raised a sole contention that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability. According to Mr. Thakore, the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated as the policy was in the nature of a package policy and thereby, no need to pay any extra premium covering the risk of pillion rider. Mr. According to Mr. Thakore, the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated as the policy was in the nature of a package policy and thereby, no need to pay any extra premium covering the risk of pillion rider. Mr. Thakore, however, submitted that when the package policy and/or comprehensive policy is issued, in that event, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the claim of the pillion rider as well as the occupant of a private car. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Thakore has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 . 8. By making the above submissions, Mr. Thakore has prayed this Court to allow the appeal accordingly. 9. Per contra, Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the present appeal, however, could not dispute the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra). Mr. Thakkar has, therefore, urged this Court to pass appropriate orders. 10. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone the record and proceedings of the concerned Tribunal. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, except what are stated hereinabove. 11. Having heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and having through the material produced on record, the only question that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in exonerating the Insurance Company only because the policy was a package policy and no additional premium was paid for pillion rider? 12. The aforesaid question is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra). In Balakrishnan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered and discussed the issue whether the policy in question is a comprehensive policy or an Act policy. It would be profitable to quote the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balakrishnan (supra) in paras 21 to 26 as under: “21. At this stage, it is apposite to note that when the decision in Bhagyalakshmi v. United Insurance Co. It would be profitable to quote the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balakrishnan (supra) in paras 21 to 26 as under: “21. At this stage, it is apposite to note that when the decision in Bhagyalakshmi v. United Insurance Co. Ltd (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 and Anr. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another ( 2011 ACJ 1415 (Del), 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 two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy. 22. The relevant portion of the circular which has been reproduced by the High Court is as follows:- “INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ref: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/073/11/2009 Dated: 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 Comprehensive Policy) for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:- ‘Section II - Liability to Third Parties 1. Insurers’ attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1 (ii) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy) for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:- ‘Section II - Liability to Third Parties 1. Subject to the limits of liabilities as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of - (i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.’ It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above provisions are in line with the following circulars earlier issued by the TAC on the subject: (i) Circular M.V. No. l of 1978 - dated 18th March, 1978 (regarding occupants carried in Private Car) effective from 25th March, 1977. (ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2nd June, 1986 (regarding pillion riders in a two-wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. The above circulars make it clear that the insured 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. The Authority vide circular No. 066/IRDA/F&U/Mar-08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under File & Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further orders the insurers shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditions wording, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Further the Authority, vide circular No. 019/IRDA/NL/F&U/Oct-08 dated November 6, 2008 has mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standard covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. All general insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of competent authority. All general insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of competent authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director” [emphasis supplied] 23. The High Court has also reproduced a circular issued by IRD dated 3.12.2009. It is instructive to quote the same:- “INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ref: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/078/12/2009 Dated: 3.12.2009. To All CEOs of All general insurance companies (except ECGC, AIC, Staff Health, Apollo) Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two-wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy). Pursuant to the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 23.11.2009 in MAC APP No. 176/2009 in the case of Yashpal Luthra v. United India and Ors., the Authority convened a meeting on November 26, 2009 of the CEOs of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in the presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Authority and the leaned amicus curie. Based on the unanimous decision taken in the meeting by the representatives of the general insurance companies to comply with the IRDA circular dated 16th November, 2009 restating the position relating to the liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies which was communicated to the court on the same day i.e. November 26, 2009 and the court was pleased to pass the order (dt. 26.11.2009) received from the Court Master, Delhi High Court, is enclosed for your ready reference and adherence. In terms of the said order and the admitted liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a twowheeler under the comprehensive/package policies, you are advised to confirm to the Authority, strict compliance of the circular dated 16th November, 2009 and orders dt. 26.11.2009 of the High Court. 26.11.2009 of the High Court. Such compliance on your part would also involve: i) withdrawing the plea against such a contest wherever taken in the cases pending before the MACT, and issue appropriate instructions to their respective lawyers and the operating officers within 7 days; ii) with respect to all appeals pending before the High Courts on this point, issuing instructions within 7 days to the respective operating officers and the counsel to withdraw the contest on this ground which would require identification of the number of appeals pending before the High Courts (whether filed by the claimants or the insurers) on this issue within a period of 2 weeks and the contest on this ground being withdrawn within a period of four weeks thereafter; iii) With respect to the appeals pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, informing, within a period of 7 days, their respective advocates on record about the IRDA Circulars, for appropriate advice and action. Your attention is also drawn to the discussions in the CEOs meeting on 26.11.2009, when it was reiterated that insurers must take immediate steps to collect statistics about accident claims on the above subject through a central point of reference decided by them as the same has to be communicated in due course to the Honourable High Court. You are therefore advised to take up the exercise of collecting and collating the information within a period of two months to ensure necessary & effective compliance of the order of the Court. The information may be centralized with the Secretariat of the General Insurance Council and also furnished to us. IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action taken by you in this regard. This has the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director” [emphasis added] 24. It is extremely important to note here that till 31st December, 2006 the Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1st January, 2007, IRDA functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the policies by all insurance companies. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and the IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the “comprehensive/ package policy”. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and the IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the “comprehensive/ package policy”. Before the High Court, the Competent Authority of IRDA had stated that on 2nd June, 1986, the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the “comprehensive policy” and the said position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that the “comprehensive policy” is presently called a “package policy”. It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the earlier circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the “comprehensive/package policy” irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent authority of the IRDA was also examined before the High Court who stated that the circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective from 1st July, 2002 and they continue to be operative and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid factual position, the circulars dated 16th November 2009 and 3rd December, 2009, that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued. 25. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated thus:- “In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC’s directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.” 26. In fact, in view of the TAC’s directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.” 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 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. 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.” 13. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the fact that in the instant case, the policy, which was in existence and valid, was in the nature of a package policy. Thus, in my view, the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated from its liability. I answer the question accordingly. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company is hereby held jointly and vicariously liable to satisfy the judgement and award dated 21st April 2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.740 of 2008 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary - II), Additional District Judge, Mahesana. 15. I answer the question accordingly. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company is hereby held jointly and vicariously liable to satisfy the judgement and award dated 21st April 2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.740 of 2008 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary - II), Additional District Judge, Mahesana. 15. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,35,160/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till the deposit before the learned Tribunal within a period of twelve weeks, and upon deposit the amount by the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal shall, thereafter, disburse the amount in favour of the claimant after due verification. 16. The record and proceedings of the concerned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.