JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant No.3 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’) against the judgment and award dated 25.11.2022 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur in Claim Case No.51/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,88,000/- along with interest @ 5.50% p.a. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased, Fula Devi was traveling in the insured jeep bearing number RJ-37-UA-2483 on 04.05.2013 at 7:00 PM, from Meethdi to Thathana when she fell down due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver, and received injuries, on account of which she died subsequently. Thereafter, a claim was filed before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 and 140 of the MV Act, and a sum of Rs.24,04,000/-. 3. In response to the said claim, respondent no. 1 and 2/driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively negated the occurrence of any such accident on 04.05.2013 and alternatively stated if at all, any liability arises, it would fall upon the appellant-Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle had been insured. Appellant-Insurance Company, in its reply to the Claim petition took a preliminary objection that the deceased was traveling as an unauthorised passenger in the offending vehicle, for whom no premium had been charged by the appellant-Insurance Company and thus, no liability accrues upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. After hearing the parties, learned Commissioner framed four issues including : 5. During the course of the proceedings, the respondents/claimants no. 1 and 2 examined A.D. 1 Lalu Ram and A.D. 2, Ganesh Ram and exhibited 12 documents in support of their claim. Appellant-Insurance Company examined N.A.D 1, Rakesh Solanki and produced the Insurance Policy (N.A.1) in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company and on the basis of the same, the learned Tribunal, Kuchaman City, vide judgment/award dated 25.11.2022 awarded a sum of Rs.4,88,000/- @ 5.50% p.a. 6. Thus, aggrieved of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 7. Thus, aggrieved of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in imposing the liability upon the Insurance Company inasmuch as the Insurance Policy clearly stipulates that the offending Vehicle had been insured under a “Private Car Liability Only Policy” which does not cover the risk of third party risk of an “occupant” in a car. For the purpose of the same, he also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan reported in 2013 (1) SCC 731 . 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in misreading the nature of the policy based on the phrase “Total Package Premium” under the head of 'Premium Details' and based on this conjecture, came to a finding that the Insurance Policy was a “Package Policy” and held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants on account of the death of the deceased who was traveling as an occupant in the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. He also submitted that no premium was charged for the passengers sitting in the offending vehicle and therefore, under the Act only policy, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable. For the purpose of the same, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. v Rajbala [S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2207/2017 decided on 08.08.2024]. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sharda Devi [S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.696/2003 decided on 04.08.2016], wherein it has been observed that the direction to pay and recover only in the case of third parties in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 , and thus, in the present case, where the risk of the deceased herself was not covered under the Insurance Policy, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the Owner-Driver. 10. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/non-claimants submits that the Insurance Policy mentions that the “Total Package Premium” has been charged under the head of “Premium Details” in the Insurance Policy and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the Insurance Policy as a “Package Policy” and imposed liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is adequate and, therefore, the same requires no interference in the instant misc. appeal filed by the appellant insurance company. 12. Heard counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 13. This Court finds that while the learned Tribunal had observed in its order that the Insurance Policy (Ex.N.A.1) has been titled as “Private Car Liability Policy Only”, however it has relied upon the conjecture that the said Insurance Policy is not an Act Only Policy, inasmuch as in Part ‘A’ to ‘B’ of the said Policy (Ex. N.A.1) it has been mentioned as Total Package Premium, to conclude that the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability when the occupants in a private car are also covered under the “Total Package Premium”. The relevant part of the order passed by the learned Tribunal is reproduced as under : 14. This Court thus observes that the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the very title of the Insurance Policy (Ex.N.A.1), which is titled as “Private Car Liability Only Policy” which is clearly stipulated in the Policy (Ex.N.A.1) itself and therefore, the case of the deceased ought to have been adjudicated by the learned Tribunal as per the Act Only policy and not Package Policy. 15. This Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sharda Devi [S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.696/2003 decided on 04.08.2016] wherein it was observed that the Policy in question was an Act Only Policy, the Tribunal in the said case ought not have given the direction of Pay and Recover when the deceased was not a third party. Appeal No.696/2003 decided on 04.08.2016] wherein it was observed that the Policy in question was an Act Only Policy, the Tribunal in the said case ought not have given the direction of Pay and Recover when the deceased was not a third party. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under : “So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants seeking direction of pay and recover in terms of the judgment in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) are concerned, as already noticed hereinbefore, the direction of pay and recover has been held applicable by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of third parties only and as the deceased has not been held to be a third party, the direction pertaining to the pay and recover cannot be passed.” This Court thus observes that the deceased was an occupant in the offending vehicle, and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay the compensation to the respondents/claimants and recover from the owner-driver. 16. This Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. v Rajbala [S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2207/2017 decided on 08.08.2024], wherein it has been observed that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable in the case of an Act Only Policy when there is no premium charged towards the passengers travelling in the offending vehicle. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under : “In view of the above cited judgments, the position of law as it stands at present is that in case of a private vehicle insured against “Act only Policy”, the liability of occupants is not covered as the protection of Chapter-XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is only available against the third party risks and the occupants of a private vehicle are not third parties. And in such cases direction to pay and recover cannot be issued to the insurer. And in such cases direction to pay and recover cannot be issued to the insurer. In the present case, the vehicle was evidently insured as a ‘Private Car Liability Only Policy’/’Act Only Policy’ wherein the risk of the occupants was not covered and also no premium was received by the appellant-insurance company for the occupants of the vehicle.” Thus, in the present case too, in the absence of any premium charged towards the deceased as per the Insurance Policy which is an Act Only Policy, the direction of pay and recover cannot be issued to the appellant-Insurance Company. 17. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Policy in question was a Package Policy merely because the phrase “Total Package Premium” is mentioned under the heading of ‘Premium Details’, while the title of the Insurance Policy itself states it to be a “Private Car Liability Only Policy”. Furthermore, the Insurance Policy in the present case is a Liability Only Policy, the risk of third parties, who are occupants in a private car, is not covered and thus the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased, who was traveling as an occupant in the offending vehicle as no premium has been charged against covering the risk of the deceased in the Insurance Policy too. Thus, the burden falls upon the respondents/non-claimants to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal and the appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay and recover from the Owner-driver. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2022 is modified to the effect that the appellant company is completely exonerated from any liability to satisfy the award and the owner & driver are held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. 19. Any amount paid by the appellant-Insurance Company in terms of the award shall also be open to be recovered from the respondent no. 3 and 4. No order as to costs.