JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), lays challenge to award dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned MACT-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Petition No. 130-MAC/2 of 2019, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition, held the respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,90,000/-, alongwith 7.5 percent interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that claimants instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs.30.00 lac on account of death of Rajan Kumar, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent No.2 and son of respondent No.3. On 22.4.2019, deceased Rajan Kumar, while travelling as pillion rider on Motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-71-4409, driven by respondent No.4 met with an accident, as a result thereof, he suffered multiple and grievous injuries. Though he was taken to Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, for treatment, but unfortunately, succumbed to injuries and died. 3. Claimants claimed that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.4, who was allegedly intoxicated and driving at a high speed. Claimants claimed that deceased was 38 years old and at that time, was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, being a skilled painter. Claimants claimed that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and they being dependant deserve to be paid compensation. 4. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted by respondent No.4 and appellant-Insurance Company, who though by way of filing separate reply, admitted factum with regard to accident, but denied the rash and negligent driving if any, of respondent No.4. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and as such, is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned Tribunal below on the basis of evidence as well as pleadings adduced on record held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,90,000/-. Though major liability to the tune of Rs. 5. Learned Tribunal below on the basis of evidence as well as pleadings adduced on record held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,90,000/-. Though major liability to the tune of Rs. 13,90,000/- came to be fastened upon owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.4, but since learned Tribunal below also held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac alongwith costs of the petition to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, it has approached this Court in the instant appeal on the ground that as per policy taken by the ensured, appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay for pillion rider because same was Act only policy. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant-Insurance Company, as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant is that Tribunal below fell in grave error while holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- because as per policy, appellant-Insurance Company was only liable to pay qua the death or injury, if any, caused to the driver of the offending vehicle, that too, to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. While making this Court peruse the insurance policy Ex.RW1/B, Mr. Thakur, vehemently argued that Rs. 720/- was charged as total basic liability premium and sum of Rs. 50/- was charged on account of compulsory PA cover to owner-driver, but no amount of any kind was ever charged for person travelling in the offending vehicle, as a pillion rider. If it is so, there was no occasion, if any, for the Tribunal below to saddle the liability to pay Rs. 1.00 lac. He further submitted that Tribunal below mis-interpreted, the provisions of the insurance policy, because at no point of time, premium, if any, was taken for a person, if any, driving with the driver of the ensured vehicle, rather premium, if any, was taken for the owner/driver of the vehicle. He further submitted that Tribunal below wrongly concluded that appellant-Insurance Company besides charging Rs.50/- for compulsory PA cover to Owner/driver, also charged PA premium for third party i.e. pillion rider, whereas only sum of Rs. 50/- has been charged for PA Cover to the owner- driver. 8. Mr. He further submitted that Tribunal below wrongly concluded that appellant-Insurance Company besides charging Rs.50/- for compulsory PA cover to Owner/driver, also charged PA premium for third party i.e. pillion rider, whereas only sum of Rs. 50/- has been charged for PA Cover to the owner- driver. 8. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, representing the claimants while fairly admitting the aforesaid mistake committed by the Tribunal, submitted that otherwise also, under policy for Act liability, Insurance Company can be made to pay for damage, if any, caused to third party or to a limited extent qua the injury and death, if any of the owner/driver of the insured vehicle. 9. Ms. Tanu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 while supporting the impugned award submitted that bare perusal of insurance policy placed on record, clearly reveals that Insurance Company besides charging Rs. 50/- on account of compulsory PA Cover to owner-driver, also charged sum of Rs. 50/- for PA premium, which means that it was also liable to pay sum of Rs. 1.00 lac to the pillion rider. 10. Before ascertaining the correctness of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to take note of the fact that impugned award has been not laid challenge by respondent No.4 i.e. owner of the vehicle and as such, finding returned in the same, has attained finality qua the respondent-owner. Otherwise also, as per impugned award, liability to pay Rs. 13,90,000/- alongwith interest has been fastened upon respondent No.4 i.e. owner of the vehicle. 11. Primarily, question which needs to be determined in the instant appeal is “whether Tribunal below has erred in holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay Rs. 1.00 lac to the claimant on account of death of Mr. Rajan Kumar, who was travelling as a pillion rider on the date of the accident?” 12. It is not in dispute, rather stands duly admitted that policy Ex.RW1/B was an Act policy and as per same, appellant-Insurance Company was only liable to pay damage to 3rd party, if any, involved in the accident. Perusal of policy as detailed herein above, clearly reveals that insurance company besides charging Rs. 720/- on account of basic liability i.e. third party property damage, also charged Rs. Perusal of policy as detailed herein above, clearly reveals that insurance company besides charging Rs. 720/- on account of basic liability i.e. third party property damage, also charged Rs. 50/- on account of compulsory PA cover to owner cum driver, meaning thereby, appellant-Insurance Company besides holding liability, if any, on account of damage caused to his/her vehicle is /was liable to pay amount of Rs. 1.00 lac to the owner driver of the vehicle, however, in the case at hand, Tribunal below wrongly mis-interpreted the provisions of the policy and arrived at a wrong conclusion that insurance company besides charging Rs. 50/- on account of compulsory PA cover to owner driver, also charged Rs. 50/- as PA premium for a third party, whereas perusal of policy RW-1/B, clearly reveals that in total Rs. 909/- were charged by the Insurance Company, out of which Rs.720/- was towards basic liability and Rs. 50/- on account of PA cover to owner driver and the rest of the amount was on account of CGST and SGST. 13. Tribunal below while holding appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay Rs. 1.00 lac wrongly took into consideration seating capacity. Admittedly, offending vehicle being motorcycle was a two seater, but that does not mean that pillion rider, if any, at the time of the accident, would automatically become eligible to be compensated, especially when Insurance policy (Ext. 1/B) nowhere reveals that Insurance Company had charged premium, if any, to cover third party other than owner cum driver. Leaving everything aside, Insurance Policy, which is subject matter of the present case, was an Act liability insurance for two wheeler and as per same, Insurance Company is only liable to pay qua damage, if any, caused to third party and to driver cum owner to the extent of limited liability. 14. Had owner of the offending vehicle taken comprehensive policy, pillion rider travelling at the time of the accident, would have also become entitled for compensation, but certainly when vehicle was covered under the Act policy, Tribunal below could not have held the Insurance Company liable to pay sum of Rs. 1.00 lac, to deceased Rajan Kumar, who admittedly at the time of the accident was travelling as a pillion rider. 15. 1.00 lac, to deceased Rajan Kumar, who admittedly at the time of the accident was travelling as a pillion rider. 15. After having carefully perused Insurance Policy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has not been able to dispute that no premium, if any, qua the pillion rider, was ever paid by the owner of the vehicle, rather sum of Rs. 50/- apart from Rs. 720/- charged for basic third party liability was paid on account of PA cover to owner cum driver. Careful perusal of insurance policy, clearly reveals that vehicle in question was ensured only for third party risk only and since owner of the vehicle had not paid any additional premium so as to cover the occupants, if any, of the vehicle, there was no occasion, if any, for the Tribunal below to fasten the liability to pay Rs. 1.00 lac, upon the appellant on account of other occupants of the vehicle i.e. deceased in the present case. 16. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment dated 15.11.2019, passed by this court in FAO(MVA) No. 446 of 2012, Pooja and Anr. v. Tot Ram and Ors., 2021 ACJ 504 , relevant paras No.8 9 and 10 read as under: “8. Leaving everything aside, careful perusal of Insurance Policy, Ext. RX, clearly reveals that the vehicle in question was insured only for third party risk of owner and respondent No.3 being owner did not pay any additional premium so as to cover the occupants, if any, of the vehicle. Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for the claimants was unable to dispute that vide insurance policy, Ext. RX, vehicle in question was insured only for third party risk and as such, no fault, if any, can be found with the findings recorded by learned Tribunal below qua aforesaid aspect of the matter. 9. Though, the material placed on record suggests that the deceased was sitting in the vehicle at the time of alleged accident, but as has been taken note herein above, she was wife of the owner of vehicle. Learned Tribunal below, rightly came to the conclusion that she cannot be considered to be a ‘third party’. Findings recoded by learned Tribunal below qua aforesaid aspect of the matter are duly supported by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Sada Nand Mukhi and others, (2009) 2 SCC 417 . Learned Tribunal below, rightly came to the conclusion that she cannot be considered to be a ‘third party’. Findings recoded by learned Tribunal below qua aforesaid aspect of the matter are duly supported by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Sada Nand Mukhi and others, (2009) 2 SCC 417 . As per aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, insurance company cannot be compelled to indemnify the owner qua the person, whose risk was not separately covered. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter i.e. in the case at hand, as referred in para-12 of the Award itself, accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased and as such, claim petition filed by claimants seeking therein compensation on account of death of deceased is/was not competent itself.” 17. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 20.11.2012, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8163 of 2012, titled National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Anr. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under: “21. 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 the 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 the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) 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 the 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. 22……………………… 23. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the 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. 22……………………… 23. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we think it apposite to set aside the finding of the High Court and the tribunal as regards the liability of the insurer and remit the matter to the tribunal to scrutinize the policy in a proper perspective and, if necessary, by taking additional evidence and if the conclusion is arrived at that the policy in question is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be fastened on the insurer. As far as other findings recorded by the tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are concerned, they remain undisturbed.” 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present appeal and as such, same is allowed and sum of Rs. 14,90,000/-awarded as compensation to the claimants shall be paid by respondent No.4 and there shall be no liability of appellant-Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as was ordered vide impugned order. Since appellant-Insurance Company has deposited Rs. 1,15,078/- in the Registry of this Court, same may be refunded to it by remitting the same in its bank account alongwith interest, detail whereof shall be furnished by the learned counsel within one week. In the aforesaid terms, present appeal is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.