JUDGMENT : V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, in M.V.O.P.No.86 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner against respondent Nos.1 & 2 only, the 2 nd respondent/New India Assurance Company preferred the instant appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.6,90,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.11.2005. 4. Facts germane to dispose of the present appeal may briefly be stated as follows: On 08.11.2005 at 12.30 noon the petitioner and his wife and in-laws were proceeding from Chennai to Chittoor in a car of the 1st respondent bearing registration No.TN 23C 7727, which was engaged by the in-laws of the petitioner on hire, and when they reached MBT road near Perumpulipakkam, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the milk tanker of the 3rd respondent bearing registration No.TN 27P 4449, which was proceeding in front of the car, and later the car went in a zig-zag manner and hit the divider of the road, as a result, all the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries. The S.H.O., Kaveripakkam P.S. registered a case in Crime No.411 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the car of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the car. The 3rd respondent is owner and the 4th respondent is insurer of the milk tanker. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. The 3rd respondent was set ex parte. 6. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed written statements separately by denying the manner of accident. i) It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk tanker and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 6. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed written statements separately by denying the manner of accident. i) It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk tanker and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. ii) It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company that the car was insured as a private vehicle and since the car has been given for hire and reward, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the insurance policy does not cover the cases which fall under ‘hire and reward’, the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk tanker of the 3rd respondent, as such, the appellant/Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. iii) It is pleaded by the 4th respondent/United India Insurance company that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car of the 1st respondent, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.TN 23C 7727 or the milk tanker bearing No.TN 27P 4449? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and, accordingly, partly allowed the petition and granted an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent Nos.1 and 2 only and dismissed the petition against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the 2 nd respondent/New India Assurance Company preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 11. The appellant pleaded that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability on the owner and insurer of the milk tanker, since both the car and milk tanker were involved in the accident and the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the appellant since the insured car is a private car and it was hired to the petitioner at the time of accident. 12. Now, the points for determination are: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing registration No.TN 23C 7727 or the driver of the milk tanker bearing registration No.TN 27P 4449? and 2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court, if so, to what extent? 13. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The pleadings of the petitioners in the claim petition are that the petitioner along with his wife left London to visit his parents and in-laws and came down to Chennai Airport on 08.11.2005 and father-in-law of the petitioner, by name, Kesavulu Naidu, and his mother-in-law, by name, Jayabharathi, engaged a car bearing registration No.TN 23C 7727 of the 1st respondent on hire and came to Chennai Airport and the petitioner, his wife and inlaws left Chennai to come to Chittoor. On the way at about 12.30 noon while the car was plying on MBT road near Perumpulipakkam, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the milk tanker of the 3rd respondent bearing registration No.TN 27P 4449, which was proceeding in front of the car, and later the car went in a zig-zag manner and hit the divider of the road, as a result, all the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries. 14. In order to establish the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and relied on Exs.A.1 and A.3. P.W.1 in his evidence reiterated the contents of the petition and also denied the contra suggestions put to him. Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report clearly goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the car. P.W.1 in his evidence reiterated the contents of the petition and also denied the contra suggestions put to him. Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report clearly goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the car. Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge sheet also goes to show that after completion of investigation, the concerned S.H.O. laid a charge sheet against the driver of the car. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.3 reveals that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car of the 1st respondent. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. Coming to the compensation, on considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.5 and A.11-wound certificates, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering. On considering Ex.A.6-medical bills, Ex.A.9-receipt issued by New Dot Travels, Tirupati, and the evidence of P.W.2 that the petitioner cannot even take food without assistance for about two months, the Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- towards expenditure incurred for the treatment of the petitioner, Rs.7,500/- towards transport charges and Rs.7,500/- towards attendant charges. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income. In all, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the above heads, in my view, is just and reasonable. No appeal or cross-objections is filed by the petitioner for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Ex.B.5-certified copy of insurance policy clearly goes to show that the offending car of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company, the policy is an act policy, and the inmates of the car are not covered by the policy. The material on record reveals that P.W.1 travelled in the offending car and the said car was taken on hire from the 1st respondent. Ex.A.1- first information report and Ex.A.3-charge sheet also support the same. As per the evidence of P.W.1, at the time of accident, the driver of the offending car was driving the car at a speed of 120 kms. Ex.A.1- first information report and Ex.A.3-charge sheet also support the same. As per the evidence of P.W.1, at the time of accident, the driver of the offending car was driving the car at a speed of 120 kms. The material on record clearly establishes that the offending car was given on hire by the 1st respondent/owner of the car, the petitioner was an inmate of the car at the time of accident, and Ex.B.5-policy does not cover the risk of the inmates of the offending car as no premium was paid for their coverage. 17. The legal position in this regard is not res nova and the same has been well settled. The Apex Court in National insurance Company Limited Vs. Balakrishnan (2013) 1 SCC 731 had an occasion to deal with the similar issue. In the said case, it is held as under: “An ‘Act policy’ stands on a different footing from a ‘comprehensive/package policy’. As the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), which is presently the statutory regulatory authority, has commanded the insurance companies that a ‘comprehensive/package policy’ covers the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation to the occupant in a motor vehicle, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. The earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of an ‘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. IRDA has clarified the position by issuing Circulars dated 16-11-2009 and 3-12-2009. Therefore, a ‘comprehensive/package policy’ would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car.” 18. A Division Bench of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Kondakotla Saroja, 2008 (5) Andh LD 288 held that “once the Insurance company under Ex.A.5 cover note has not undertaken the liability by collecting extra premium for the passengers who travelled in the insured vehicle, it cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and it is only the respondent-owner of the vehicle who is liable to satisfy the decree and pay the compensation amount”. 19. 19. The facts in the instant case clearly go to show that the offending car was given on hire by the 1st respondent/owner of the car, but Ex.B.5-policy does not cover the risk of the inmates of the car. I have perused Ex.B.5-policy which clearly goes to show that the policy is an ‘act policy’ and not a ‘package policy’. The same is not disputed by the counsel for the claim petitioner. The petitioner was travelling in the offending car and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car only, the accident took place. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 20. On a perusal of the entire record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest and the liability is fixed against respondent Nos.1 & 2 only. In the case on hand, the policy of the offending car is stated to be an ‘act policy’ and the offending car is a private car and the same shall be used for the purposes mentioned in the policy and it does not specifically cover the risk of third parties. 21. The expression ‘third party’ in the common parlance should be treated as a person not travelling in the vehicle including the owner, unless separate premium covering such other persons travelling in the vehicle including the owner is paid covering any risk to such person. Therefore, basically it is only conditions of the policy that would and should govern both the parties so far as their respective obligations, particularly that of the insurer. Admittedly, the policy is an act policy, therefore, the appellant/Insurance company i.e., insurer of the 1st respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. 22. At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court in the appeal, the Insurer was directed to deposit 50% of the award amount with costs and interest and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the same. 23. 22. At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court in the appeal, the Insurer was directed to deposit 50% of the award amount with costs and interest and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the same. 23. In this context, I am of the view that at this length of time, particularly, in a case where the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and amount is spent by claimant towards medical expenses, I do not feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to repay the amount, which was deposited by the insurer and already withdrawn by the petitioner, as per the interim directions of this Court, to the insurer applying the principle of ‘equity’. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The liability fixed on the appellant/Insurance company by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The appellant/2 nd respondent-New India Assurance Company shall recover the 50% of the compensation amount already deposited by it with costs and interest, from the 1st respondent/owner of the offending car, by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. The 1st respondent is directed to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation amount with costs and interest to the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.