JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common judgment and award dated 02/30.12.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Banaskantha (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. Nos.598 of 2001, 597 of 2001 and 599 of 2001, the appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.) 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeals – 2.1 That the accident occurred on 20.11.2001. It is the case of the original claimants that the deceased Marad Siddik Sota, deceased Bhalu Lakha Sota, injured Khengarji Akherajaji Jadeja and injured Roopubha Tamachi Jadeja were travelling in Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-12-K-8141 and when the claimants approached at Mankuva, the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-T-7166 came from front side in rash and negligent manner dashed with the said Jeep as a result of which one Murad Siddik Sota and Bhalu Lakha Sota sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries and one Khengarji Akherajaji Jadeja and Roopubha Tamachi Jadeja sustained bodily injuries. Hence, the original claimants have filed M.A.C.P. Nos.598 of 2001, 597 of 2001 and 599 of 2001 before the Tribunal. The FIR at Exhibit 51 was lodged with the jurisdictional police station and the claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Act by the claimants and they claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. The claimants have examined before the Tribunal at Exhibit 50 in M.A.C.P. No.599 of 2001, at Exhibit 52 in M.A.C.P. No.598 of 2001 and at Exhibit 53 in M.A.C.P. No.597 of 2001 respectively. 2.2 The claimants relied upon the various documentary evidence such as FIR at Exhibit 59, Panchnama of the scene of occurrence at Exhibit 60, P. M. Report of Murad Siddik at Exhibit 67 and Bhalu Lakha at Exhibit 75, Insurance Policy of Jeep at Exhibit 69, Medical certificates issued by the doctor. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.598 of 2001, Rs.4,10,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.599 of 2001 and Rs.40,00,750/- under the different heads as against the respective claims. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common judgment and award, the appellant – Insurance Company preferred these appeals. 3. Heard Mr. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common judgment and award, the appellant – Insurance Company preferred these appeals. 3. Heard Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.11 – New India Assurance Company Ltd. Though served to the other respondents, who have chosen not to appear before the Court. 4. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company submitted that the present appeals are filed mainly on the ground of liability of the appellant 50% each. He submitted that the appellant – Insurance Company insured jeep involved in the accident in question and respondent no.11 – Insurance Company insured truck involved in the accident. He also submitted that the Tribunal held the contributory negligence on the part of the present appellant and respondent no.11 50% each. He further submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in overlooking the fact that the claimants were travelling in the insured Jeep where the appellant has issued liability only policy – Act only policy and, therefore, the risk of the passengers sitting in the Jeep is not covered under such policy. He submitted that there was no additional premium to pay the compensation. He relied upon the policy of the Jeep at Exhibit 69 and submitted that the appellant has not liable for the claims raised by the claimants as the risk was not covered under such policy. He submitted that even the Tribunal has noted the said fact, which has not been dealt with in its true spirit. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel, in order to buttress his arguments, relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudhakaran K. V., (2008) 7 SCC 428 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan, (2013) 1 SCC 731 and the decision of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Anjaria) rendered in First Appeal No.505 of of 2015 dated 22.01.2021 and the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. M. Chhaya and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt) rendered in First Appeal Nos.3325 of 2009 and 786 of 2009 dated 09.12.2021. He submitted that the insurance policy was renewed and, therefore, the appellant is not liable on the aforesaid grounds. Justice R. M. Chhaya and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt) rendered in First Appeal Nos.3325 of 2009 and 786 of 2009 dated 09.12.2021. He submitted that the insurance policy was renewed and, therefore, the appellant is not liable on the aforesaid grounds. He further submitted that the insured Jeep was used for hire and reward as passenger vehicle. 5. Per contra, Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.11 – Insurance Company submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant – Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. He further submitted that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. Having considered the materials placed on record, submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, it appears that issue of the “Act Policy” was not dealt with by the Tribunal and the same is point of law and hence, the same can be considered in the appeals. It is also relevant to note that the claimants have not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and award and only, the present appellant – Insurance Company has filed the appeals challenging the liability. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence at Exhibit 59, 60, 78 and Mark 69/1, it is clearly mentioned that it is “Act Only Policy”. 8. Sections 146 and 147 of the Act provides as under – “146. Necessity for insurance against third party risks.-- (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter: Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991). (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for purposes not connected with any commercial enterprise. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for purposes not connected with any commercial enterprise. (3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operation of sub-section (1), any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities, namely:-- (a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for purposes connected with any commercial enterprise; (b) any local authority; (c) any State Transport Undertaking: Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in such manner as may be prescribed by appropriate Government.” “147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability. Requirement of policies and limits of liability. – (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which – (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insurers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub – section (2) – (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; Provided that a policy shall not be required – (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee – (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability.” 9. It is an admitted position that the policy in question is Act only policy. I find from the judgment that the said question was raised but the same has not been dealt with by the learned Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudhakaran K.V. (supra) in cases where the coverage was by an Act only policy, has observed thus - "22. The contract of insurance did not cover the owner of the vehicle, certainly not the pillion rider. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudhakaran K.V. (supra) in cases where the coverage was by an Act only policy, has observed thus - "22. The contract of insurance did not cover the owner of the vehicle, certainly not the pillion rider. The deceased was travelling as a passenger, stricto sensu may not be as a gratuitous passenger as in a given case she may not be a member of the family, a friend or other relative. In the sense of the term which is used in common parlance, she might not be even a passenger. In view of the terms of the contract of insurance, however, she would not be covered thereby. 23. It is not necessary for us to deal with large number of precedents operating in this behalf as the question appears to be covered by a few recent decisions of this Court. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Serjerao & Ors. [ 2007 (13) SCALE 80 ], it was held as under: "16....When a statutory liability has been imposed upon the owner, in our opinion, the same cannot extend the liability of an insurer to indemnify the owner, although in terms of the insurance policy or under the Act, it would not be liable therefor. 17. In a given case, the statutory liability of an insurance company, therefore, either may be nil or a sum lower than the amount specified under Section 140 of the Act. Thus, when a separate application is filed in terms of Section 140 of the Act, in terms of Section 168 thereof, an insurer has to be given a notice in which event, it goes without saying, it would be open to the insurance company to plead and prove that it is not liable at all. 18. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that there can be more than one award particularly when a sum paid may have to be adjusted from the final award. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that an award for enforcing the right under Section 140 of the Act is also required to be passed under Section 168 only after the parties concerned have filed their pleadings and have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that an award for enforcing the right under Section 140 of the Act is also required to be passed under Section 168 only after the parties concerned have filed their pleadings and have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A Claims Tribunal, thus, must be satisfied that the conditions precedent specified in Section 140 of the Act have been substantiated, which is the basis for making an award. 19. Furthermore, evidently, the amount directed to be paid even in terms of Chapter-X of the Act must as of necessity, in the event of non-compliance of directions has to be recovered in terms of Section 174 of the Act. There is no other provision in the Act which takes care of such a situation. We, therefore, are of the opinion that even when objections are raised by the insurance company in regard to it liability, the Tribunal is required to render a decision upon the issue, which would attain finality and, thus, the same would be any award within the meaning of Section 173 of the Act." It was furthermore held as under: "6. So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Ors. (2007) 7 SCALE 753 and it was held that the Insurance Company has no liability…" 25. The law which emerges from the said decisions, is: (i) the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle." 10. Similarly in the the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Similarly in the the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, has also considered the IRDA Circular and has taken a similar view. The learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 505 of 2015, has very lucidly considered the distinction between the Act only policy and has held that the liability of the insurance company to compensate the victim of the accident under the Act shall be limited to the nature of the policy and the terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance. Hence, in the case on hand, as the policy in question exhibit 36 is Act only policy, the risk of the pillion rider would not be covered. Thus, the insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. As far as next limb of argument of Mr. Shelat, learned advocate about plying jeep for hire and reward is not required to be gone into as on first limb of argument appeals succeed. 11. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed in para – 8 as under:- “8. On a scrutiny of the award passed by the Tribunal which has been given the stamp of approval by the High Court, it is manifest that the first respondent was the Managing Director of Respondent 2 and the vehicle was registered in the name of the company but the Managing Director had signed on behalf of the company in the RC book of the car that was involved in the accident. The High Court has returned a finding that the company and the Managing Director are two different legal entities and hence, the Managing Director cannot be equated with the owner. On that foundation, the claimant has been treated as a passenger and, accordingly, liability has been fastened on the insurer. 12. In view of the above, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the appellant – Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants as there is composite negligence. The claimants shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the an other Insurance Company i.e. respondent no.11. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the appellant – Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants as there is composite negligence. The claimants shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the an other Insurance Company i.e. respondent no.11. The respondent no.11 is directed to pay the amount of compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-12-K-8141 by way of executing proceedings in the manner mentioned in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224 . The amount, which is deposited by the appellant – Insurance Company before the Tribunal and/or before this Court at the time of filing the present appeals shall be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company with proportionate costs and interest. Record and proceedings be transmitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.