JUDGMENT : Both these appeals are directed against the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1 Solan, District Solan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 16-S/2 of 2018, titled as Sarindra & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 05.10.2019, in terms whereof, the claim petition preferred before the said Tribunal by the claimants, therein stood disposed of in the following terms:- In the light of what has been discussed herein-above while recording findings on issues supra, the claim petition is allowed against respondents No.2(i) and 2(ii) and they are liable to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 69,01,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lac One Thousand Only) to the petitioners. The award shall further carry an interest @ 6% per annum 1 from the date of filing of this petition till the realization/deposit of the amount. The litigation expenses are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. Interim compensation, if any, awarded under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, shall be reduced from the aforesaid amount. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 , Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. 2018 (9) Scale 310 and Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC 796 , the respondent No.1 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd., is directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners/claimants with a liberty to recover the same from the legal heirs of owner-cum-driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.2(i) & 2(ii). The respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount alongwith interest and costs with this Tribunal within two months. The petitioners/claimants shall be entitled to the amount of compensation in equal proportion. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeals are that one Sh. Jagdish Chand, husband of claimant Sarita, son of claimant Dropti and father of the remaining two claimants, lost his life in an accident which took place on 19.08.2017, involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-15A-6105, near Paradise Hotel at village Jangeshu, Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., at around 3:45 P.M. The vehicle was being driven by its owner Pukhraj Meena, who also lost his life in the said accident. The claimants filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs Only) inter-alia on the ground that at the time of his death, the deceased was 52 years old and was serving as a Laboratory Technician at Central Research Institute Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., wherein, he was drawing salary of Rs. 46,200/- per month. As per the record, whereas, the Insurance Company contested the claim petition, the legal heirs of the deceased owner/driver who were also impleaded as respondents in the claim petition were proceeded against ex-parte, which also included one minor. In the response, which was filed to the claim petition by the Insurance Company, objections were taken with regard to the maintainability of the petition as well as the locus of the claimants to file the same. Further, objection was taken by the Insurance Company with regard to the risk not being covered by the Insurance Policy and also that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger could not get benefit thereof. It was further the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was being driver in violation of the provisions of the Insurance Policy. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Jagdish Chand died due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of vehicle No.HP-15A-6105? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-1. 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. If so its effect? OPR-1. 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy without valid documents. If so, its effect? OPR-1. 6. Whether there is collusion between the petitioners and respondents No.1 & 2? OPR-1. 7. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger. If so, its effect? OPR-1. 8. Relief. 4. On the strength of the evidence which was led by the respective parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under :- Issue No. 1 Yes. Issue No. 2 Yes. OPR-1. 7. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger. If so, its effect? OPR-1. 8. Relief. 4. On the strength of the evidence which was led by the respective parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under :- Issue No. 1 Yes. Issue No. 2 Yes. The petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 69,01,000/- from respondents No.2(i) and 2(ii). Issue No. 3 No. Issue No. 4 No. Issue No. 5 No. Issue No. 6 No. Issue No. 7 Yes. Relief The petition is allowed against respondents as per operative part of the award. 5. The claim petition was allowed by learned Tribunal in terms already spelled out in the above part of this judgment. 6. Feeling aggrieved, both the Insurance Company as well as legal heirs of the deceased driver/owner of the vehicle, who stood proceeded against ex parte before learned Tribunal, have preferred these two appeals. FAO (MVA) No. 79 of 2020, has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased owner/driver of the ill fated vehicle, whereas, FAO (MVA) No. 106/2020, has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 7. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in FAO No. 79 of 2020, has argued that the findings which have been returned by learned Tribunal in Para-34 and Para-42 of the award are perverse findings, as the same are not only a result of complete misreading of the certificate of a Insurance, but the same are also inconsistence with the law declared on the subject by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, a prayer has been made by learned counsel in the said appeal, that the same be allowed and the findings which stand returned by learned Tribunal in Para-34 and Para-42 of the award be set aside and Insurance Company be directed to make good the claim as stands awarded by learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants. 8. Mr. Accordingly, a prayer has been made by learned counsel in the said appeal, that the same be allowed and the findings which stand returned by learned Tribunal in Para-34 and Para-42 of the award be set aside and Insurance Company be directed to make good the claim as stands awarded by learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants. 8. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company, has argued that the award under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the vehicle in issue was being driven in gross violation of the terms of policy and the driver was under the influence of liquor and the accident having taken place in these circumstances, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured. Without prejudice to the said contention, learned Senior Counsel, also argued that there was no infirmity with regard to the findings which stood returned by learned Tribunal in Para-34 and Para-42 of the award concerned for the reason that these findings were borne out from the record, in terms whereof, the certificate of Insurance nowhere depicted that the occupant of the vehicle was covered by the policy in issue. In addition, on merit, in the appeal which has been filed by the Insurance Company, learned Senior Counsel argued that the award passed by learned Tribunal was not sustainable being on the higher side as while calculating the gross income of the deceased, learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that whereas the income of the deceased consistently was being reflected as Rs. 54,092/- from the month of March, 2017 onwards, there was a sudden jump in the said income from Rs. 54,092/- to Rs. 60,896/- for the month of July 2017, which went unexplained. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that learned Tribunal erred in not otherwise also deducting an amount of Rs. 4100/- and an amount of Rs. 1890/- which were included in the gross income of the deceased under the heads of PCA and TPT respectively. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if the claimants have to be awarded compensation, then an average of the last five months pay should have been taken into consideration and the income of the deceased ought to have been calculated thereupon. 9. Mr. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if the claimants have to be awarded compensation, then an average of the last five months pay should have been taken into consideration and the income of the deceased ought to have been calculated thereupon. 9. Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants in both the cases while supporting the claim which has been awarded in favour of the claimants submitted that the contention of Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, that the vehicle in issue was being driven by the driver under the influence of liquor was without merit because it is settled law that whether or not the driver was drunk is irrelevant for deciding the case of the 3rd party and otherwise also in the present case it nowhere stood proved that the driver was under the influence of liquor. Mr. Sharma, further submitted that argument of Insurance Company that the gross income of the deceased @ Rs. 60,896/- went un-explained was without basis as the income was proved on record by the claimants vide Ext. PW2/A, which was the last pay certificate issued in favour of the deceased employee by the employer and in the present case the employer happened to be the Central Research Institute Kasauli, which is a Government of India owned institute. Learned counsel, further argued that while calculating the income, it is the gross income of the deceased which is taken into consideration and heads under which the income is received by the deceased are immaterial. He also submitted that the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company that the average five months salary of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration was without any basis because calculation of compensation in cases under the Motor Vehicles Act is done on gross income. He also submitted that a perusal of the last pay certificate would demonstrate that the tax was deducted therefrom. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the grounds of appeals as well as the award passed by learned Tribunal and also the record of the case. 11. I will first deal with the contention of Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, who is representing the appellants in FAO No. 79 of 2020. It is not in dispute that the ill-fated vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. 11. I will first deal with the contention of Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, who is representing the appellants in FAO No. 79 of 2020. It is not in dispute that the ill-fated vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Policy stands exhibited and is on record as Ext. RW-1/B. The title of the policy reads “POLICY SCHEDULE-CUM-CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Private Car Enhancement Cover Policy.” The schedule of premium as is depicted in the certificate of Insurance reads as under:- Schedule of Premium Own Damage Liability Basic TP Cover Compulsory PA cover for Owner Driver, LL cover for Paid Driver OD Premium in Rs. 12195 TP Premium in Rs. 2387 12. At this stage, this Court would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balkrishan and Anr. (2013) 1 SCC 731 . In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to point out as to what is the difference between “An Act Policy” and “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. After taking into consideration the decision rendered by Hon’ble two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagyalakshmi and Ors., Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., & Anr., 2009 (7) SCC 148 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Yashpal Luthra Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., & Anr. 2011 ACJ 1415 (Delhi). Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-26 of the judgment held as under: 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 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 Bhagyalakshmi and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. 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 Bhagyalakshmi 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 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. Thus, it is apparent from the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case a policy in issue is a “comprehensive/package policy,” then the liability of the occupants of the vehicle would be covered. Now coming back to the facts of the present case, the deceased happened to be an occupant of the ill-fated vehicle. The policy in issue as has been mentioned hereinabove also was a “private car enhancement cover policy” and not an “Act Policy.” That being the case, in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no hesitation in holding that this policy, as an inbuilt mechanism, covered the 3rd party risk of an occupant in a car. This extremely important aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the learned Tribunal while returning the findings in Para34 thereof, that deceased being a gratuitous passenger and as premium was charged for own damage and 3rd party liability only, therefore, the passenger travelling in the car at the time of the accident was not covered by the certificate of Insurance. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the findings which have been returned to this effect in the impugned award in Para-34 and Para-42 thereof, are set aside and it is held that the policy in issue being “enhancement covered policy” and the same not being an “Act policy,” the same covered the liability of the insured towards the deceased who happened to be a occupant of the car. The appeal is disposed of with the following findings. 15. Now coming to FAO No. 106 of 2020, this Court concurs with the submissions made by Mr. The appeal is disposed of with the following findings. 15. Now coming to FAO No. 106 of 2020, this Court concurs with the submissions made by Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing the respondents/claimants that the factum of the driver being under the influence of liquor cannot be a great significance so far as deciding the claim of the 3rd party is concerned. Even otherwise a close scrutiny of the award passed by learned Tribunal demonstrates that nothing was produced on record by way of evidence by the Insurance Company that the deceased/driver of the vehicle was under the influence of liquor. 16. Coming to the other contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company with regard to the wrong assessment of the last pay certificate by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the contentions so raised by the learned Senior Counsel are without any merit. The last pay certificate which has been issued by the employer of the deceased is on record as Ex. PW2/A. Perusal thereof demonstrates that this certificate was issued under the signature of the Account Officer of Central Research Institute Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. and the same is dated 27th of June, 2019. In terms of this last pay certificate, the gross total income of the deceased at the time of his death has been reflected at Rs. 60,896/-. It is a settled law that while assessing the compensation in the case of a death case or even in the case of an injury case, if the income of the deceased or the victim has to be taken into consideration, then it is that income which that person was earning as on the date of the accident which is to be taken into consideration. Though, Ex. PW2/A demonstrates that the gross pay being drawn by the deceased from the month of March, 2017 up to the month of June, 2017 was Rs. 54,092/-, but it is this certificate itself which reflects that the gross pay of the deceased for the month of July, 2017, as was paid by the employer was Rs. 60,896/-. Though, Ex. PW2/A demonstrates that the gross pay being drawn by the deceased from the month of March, 2017 up to the month of June, 2017 was Rs. 54,092/-, but it is this certificate itself which reflects that the gross pay of the deceased for the month of July, 2017, as was paid by the employer was Rs. 60,896/-. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Central Research Institute is a Government of India undertaking and therefore, in the absence of any material having been produced on record by the Insurance Company to the effect that the gross total income reflected in the said certificate was incorrect, the Court has no option, but to go with the income as stands reflected therein. Otherwise also, no evidence to the contrary has been led by the Insurance Company from which it can be deciphered that the gross income of the deceased at the time of his death was not Rs. 60,896/- per month. 17. As far as the arguments of learned Senior Counsel that the average of the last five or six months of the pay of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration while assessing compensation, all that this Court can observe is that this is not the manner in which the compensation is assessed and the component which is taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal is the last pay of deceased/victim as the case may be. Further, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the amounts reflected under the heads of PCA and TPT ought to have been excluded from the gross income of the deceased is also without any merit for the reason that the loss which the claimants have suffered on account of the death of their bread earner is the gross of the income which the bread earner was earning and the heads which lead to the gross income are of no consequence. Therefore, the Court does not finds any merit in the contentions which have been raised on behalf of the appellants in FAO No. 106 of 2020. 18. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of by allowing FAO No. 79 of 2020 in terms already mentioned hereinabove and dismissing FAO No. 106 of 2020.