JUDGMENT : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.11.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 17.07.2016 the deceased-Arkala Thirupathaiah went to attend an exam along with his friends by a car bearing No. AP-36-Q-3042 and were returning to Hanamkonda by the same car, after crossing Vivera Hotel on NH-163 near Bhongir, another Car bearing No.TS-05-UB-4854 was proceeding towards Hyderabad, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, consequently the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling lost control and hit against the other car due to which the deceased sustained grievous head injury apart from other grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Aditya Hospital, Uppal, wherein he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 40 years and was working as an Associate Professor in Chaitanya Degree College (Autonomous), Kishanpura, Hanamkonda and was drawing a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. They sought compensation of Rs.52,80,000/-. 4. The respondents No.2 and 3 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that the driver of the Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 is holding valid driving license and the said car is insured with respondent No.4 and that it is only respondent No.4 who is liable to pay compensation and that the respondent No.1 being indemnified by respondent No.4 is not liable to pay compensation. 6. The respondent No.4-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that there was collusion between two Cars bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 and TS-05-UB-4854 and that there was no negligence on part of respondent No.1 who was the driver of Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the other car. They further contended that there was collusion between two Cars bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 and TS-05-UB-4854 and that there was no negligence on part of respondent No.1 who was the driver of Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the other car. They further contended that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle does not possess valid driving license and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Indica Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 resulting in death to Arkala Thirupathaiah? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, at what rate? 3. To what relief ? 8. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked. 9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.38,51,790/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 10. Heard the submission of Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bommagani Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence. He further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company and that their Policy is “Liability Only” Policy and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the terms and conditions of “Liability Only” policy. He further argued that the petitioners failed to implead the owner and insurer of the car bearing No.TS-05-UB-4854 and that the petition is bad for non- joinder of the necessary parties. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree by allowing this appeal. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the accident is admitted and that the involvement of the vehicle is also admitted, and the said vehicle is insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and therefore, prayed to uphold the same. 13. He further submitted that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and therefore, prayed to uphold the same. 13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the Ex.B3/Insurance Policy is “Liability only Policy” ? If so, does it cover the risk of the deceased? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 14. Point No.1: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the policy issued to Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 is a ‘Liability Only” policy. A perusal of Ex.B3 reveals that it is “Liability Only Policy” issued to Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 and the name of the insured is Epuru Sreeram Reddy who is arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. b) RW1 is the driver who was driving the crime vehicle i.e., AP- 36-A-3042 and he is examined as RW1. Ex.B1/Original Driving License of M. Ravinder which discloses that he possessed a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Ex.B1 is valid from 04.06.2012 to 04.11.2026 and he is authorized to drive LMV. In his cross examination he admitted that the car which was driven by him jumped across the divider and went to the other side of the road. He further admitted that the deceased was travelling in the car driven by him. It is elicited from him that the vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent No.3 from that of respondent No.2, but he does not know the said date of transfer. He admitted that the Police have registered a case against him. The RC filed under Ex.B2 shows the name of the owner as Sreeram Reddy Epuru. As per the Policy also the insured name is shown as Epuru Sreeram Reddy. c) RW2 is the A.O of the Insurance Company. He contended that the Policy is “Liability Only Policy” and is not a comprehensive policy and that the policy covers the risk of third parties, but not the occupants of the car. His contention is that the deceased was occupant of the car, and as such, the risk of the deceased is not covered and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. d) In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. His contention is that the deceased was occupant of the car, and as such, the risk of the deceased is not covered and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. d) In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balakrishnan , [ 2013 (1) SCC 731 ] ; the Supreme Court had distinguished between an “Act only Policy” and a “Comprehensive/package policy” to say that the latter covered the liability of the insurer towards the occupants of the vehicle too, however, the former stood on a different footing which did not cover a third-party risk of an occupant in the vehicle. In view of the 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. e) In HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rajbala and Others , [2024 Live Law (Raj) 219] ; 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.” f) Since Ex.B3 reveals that it is “Liability Only Policy”. In the light of the above cited decisions, the risk of occupants in the car is not covered under the Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal, dated 25.11.2020 need to be interfered on the aspect of “Liability”. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal, dated 25.11.2020 need to be interfered on the aspect of “Liability”. The Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability, while respondent No.1/ driver of the vehicle and respondent No.2/owner of the crime vehicle are held liable to pay compensation. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Order and Decree dated 25.11.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability of paying compensation. The owner/respondent No.2 and driver/respondent No.1 of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, with regard to the amount of compensation that is already deposited by the Insurance Company, it shall recover the same from the owner and driver of the crime vehicle. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.