JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against award dated 7.9.2018 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla (for short ‘MACT’) in MAC Petition No. 29-S/2 of 2015, titled Hemanti Bhatt & others Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer & another, whereby compensation of 68,93,496/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the payment, has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 (claimants), on account of death of deceased Shireesh Bhatt in a motor accident dated 24.2.2015, while deceased was traveling in Jeepsy No. HP26-0131, owned and possessed by appellant, being driven by deceased Varun Chauhan, 2. For request and consent of parties, this appeal has been heard finally today and being decided as such. 3. Vehicle of appellant was ensured with respondent No. 4-National Insurance Company. Learned MACT has fastened liability upon appellant to pay the entire completion as apportioned in the award i.e. 80%:15%:5% amongst mother, father and brother respectively. 4. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that occupants of vehicle were also covered under the Insurance Policy and, therefore, claim, if any payable, is to be indemnified by respondent No.4-Insurance Company; that as the accident in question had taken place due to mechanical defect involving no human error in the accident and, therefore, appellant was not liable to pay the compensation; that quantum of compensation has been determined on the basis of wrong calculation of monthly income of deceased; that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of an employee of appellant; that deceased person driving the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol and accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent act and thus appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. It is undisputed that vehicle was insured with respondent No. 4-Insruance Company vide Insurance Policy, Ex. PW-2/A, which is a Policy covering the risk of ‘liability only’ of a private car. ‘Liability only’ policy conditions have been placed on record as RW-2/B, wherein relevant liability clause reads as under:- “1. 5. It is undisputed that vehicle was insured with respondent No. 4-Insruance Company vide Insurance Policy, Ex. PW-2/A, which is a Policy covering the risk of ‘liability only’ of a private car. ‘Liability only’ policy conditions have been placed on record as RW-2/B, wherein relevant liability clause reads as under:- “1. Subject to the limit of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle anywhere in India against all sums including claimant’s costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of- (i) death of or bodily injury to any person so far as it is necessary to met the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii) Damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured up to the limit specified in the schedule.” 6. This Policy also covers personal accident for owner-driver, which reads as under:- “Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions condition and limitations of this Policy, the company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independently of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in- Scale of compensation (i) Death 100% (ii) Loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye. 100% (iii) Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye. 50% (iv) Permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above.” 100% 7. In general exceptions clause 4 is also relevant for this purpose, which reads as under:- “4. Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract or employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises.” 8. The legal terms of the policy reproduced by the MACT in impugned award, which reads as under:- “Limits of Liability Clause: Under section II 1 (i) of the policy-Death or bodily injury. Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the motor vehicle act 1988. Under section II 1 (ii) of the policy-Damage to third party property is Rs.750000/- PA Cover under section 3 for owner-driver is Rs.1.0 lakhs.” 9. No where in the conditions of the policy occupants of the vehicle were insured. Therefore, plea of appellant that Insurance Policy was covering the risk related to occupants of the vehicle is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, hence this plea of appellant is not sustainable. 10. On one hand appellant is claiming that accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of its employee, but because of mechanical defect and on the other hand in the same breadth it is contended on behalf of appellant that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of driver, who was under influence of alcohol. It is an admitted fact that the driver was none else, but the employee of Electricity Board and nothing has been placed on record to establish that he was occupying the vehicle unauthorizedly or he was not authorized to drive the vehicle. Though, vehicle was registered in the name of Assistant Executive Engineer, but vehicle is actually owned by H.P. State Electricity Board and there is no legal evidence proved on record that driver of Jeepsy was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and further that accident had taken place due to drunken driving. To the contrary it is also plea of the appellant that accident took place due to mechanical fault in the vehicle, but not for rash and negligent driving of anyone, therefore, these contrary grounds are also not sustainable to interfere in the award. 11. Proof of income of deceased placed on record stands duly proved. There is nothing on record to controvert or doubt the proof of income of deceased. Learned MACT has determined the quantum of compensation by taking into consideration pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104 = (2009) 6 SCC 121 and NIC Vs. There is nothing on record to controvert or doubt the proof of income of deceased. Learned MACT has determined the quantum of compensation by taking into consideration pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104 = (2009) 6 SCC 121 and NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 = AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Nothing has been pointed out how and in what manner MACT has calculated the income as well as quantum of compensation wrongly. 12. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award and accordingly appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.