JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by Insurance Company, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”) granting a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/-. 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 is that on 10.11.2015 the petitioner along with others was travelling in Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 from Hyderabad towards Nizamabad and when they reached near Bhiknoor Church gate at about 9.00 a.m. the driver of said vehicle has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the Tractor bearing No.TS-15-UB-2162 from its behind. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates of the said vehicle sustained injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Government area Hospital, Kamareddy and thereafter she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and from there she was shifted to Yashodha Hospital, Secunderabad wherein she was treated as inpatient and was operated twice. The petitioner was aged about 48 years as on the date of accident and that she was doing tailoring work, Embroidery works etc., and that she was earning of Rs.20,000/- per month. She filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments with regard to occurrence of the accident, age, avocation of the petitioner and further contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the qualis and that there was contributory negligence of the driver of the Tractor and that the petition is bad for the non-joinder of owner and driver of the tractor. It is further contended that the driver of qualis does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner/Akthar Unnisa Begum received injuries in the road accident, due to rash and negligent driving of Toyota Qalis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? 3. To what relief ? 6. 5. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner/Akthar Unnisa Begum received injuries in the road accident, due to rash and negligent driving of Toyota Qalis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? 3. To what relief ? 6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked as Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.C1. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07.04.2021, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 8. Heard Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri T. Laxmikanth Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 and that the injured was travelling in the said vehicle as a passenger and that such risk is not covered by the Act policy under Ex.B1. He further submitted that the owner of the said vehicle has not paid any additional premium to cover the of risk of occupants in the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the tractor and that contributory negligence has to be fixed on the driver of the tractor. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various heads, he therefore prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for determination :- 1. Whether the policy under Ex.B1/covers the risk of the occupants in qualis vehicle bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 which was involved in the accident. 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence by the driver of Tractor bearing No.TS-15-UB-2162 in the occurrence of the accident? 3. 11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for determination :- 1. Whether the policy under Ex.B1/covers the risk of the occupants in qualis vehicle bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 which was involved in the accident. 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence by the driver of Tractor bearing No.TS-15-UB-2162 in the occurrence of the accident? 3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference? 5. To what relief? 12. Point No.1:- The contention of the appellant is that the policy bearing No.0507003114P110276758 issued to crime vehicle is an act policy and it does not cover the risk of occupants. A perusal of Ex.B1/copy of Insurance policy reveals that it was issued in favour of respondent No.1 for qualis bearing No. AP-25-N-8866 and it was valid from 24.02.2015 to 23.02.2016 while the accident occurred on 10.11.2015. RW.1 admitted that an amount of Rs.4,159/- was received towards third party liability. Further, it is contended that the occupants of the qualis do not come under the definition of third party, because the policy issued to the qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 is ‘liability only policy’ and not a ‘comprehensive policy’ and that In case of liability only policy, the risk of occupants of the car will not be covered. a) In support of his case he has filed a decision of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan, AIR 2013 SC 473 Wherein the Supreme Court has distinguished between an “Act only Policy” and a “Comprehensive/Package policy”. The 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” and that the comprehensive policy covers the liability of third party risk of an occupant in a car. But the Act policy cannot cover the third party risk of an occupant in a car. b) In HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd vs. Smt. Rajbala & Ors . , [2024 LiveLaw(Raj) 2019] , Wherein Rajasthan High Court held that “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. , [2024 LiveLaw(Raj) 2019] , Wherein Rajasthan High Court held that “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. Therefore, insurance company is not liable. c) In the present case also the injured petitioner is an occupant in the car and the policy issued to the crime vehicle is ‘private car liability only policy’. A perusal of the policy reveals that the premium collected is towards the third party liability and to cover the risk of the driver and no premium is collected towards the occupants of the car. d) RW1/M.V.Krishna Rao, is an Administrative Officer in United India Insurance Company Ltd., it is elicited from his evidence that the insurance policy is act policy (Liability only policy/Third party policy) and that no premium is paid for the occupants or passengers and that the occupants are not covered in the said policy and the owner is responsible for all the consequences. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the seating capacity of the accident vehicle is 10 but he has stated that there is no extra payment to cover the risk of occupants. Thus, evidence of RW1 coupled with Ex.B1 discloses that the policy issued towards qualis is “Liability only Policy (Act Policy)”. In the light of above cited decisions and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner herein while owner of the crime vehicle is liable to pay compensation. Hence, point No.1 answered accordingly. 13. Point No.2 The contention of the appellant is that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of GMR tractor and that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the qualis. Perusal of Ex.A1/F.I.R. and Ex.A2/charge sheet, reveals that on 10.11.2015 at about 7.00 hours while the petitioners along with other persons were travelling in qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866, when they reached Bhiknoor church at around 9-00 hours at NH-44, the driver of the qualis drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the GMR Tractor bearing No.TS-15-UB-2162 from behind and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the qualis. Further, perusal of the Ex.A4, copy of the crime detail form, also discloses the said fact that the qualis hit the tractor from behind. PW1, who is the injured petitioner also stated during her evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of qualis. Therefore, it is said that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the qualis and there is no contributory negligence of the driver of the GMR Tractor bearing No.TS-15-UB-2162. Hence, the point No.2 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.3:- The petitioner’s case is that she sustained severe head injury, left temporal contusion, right zygoma fracture, thin RIM of SDB in high right parietal region, laceration on over right eye, contusion around right eye and abrasion over left knee. PW.2/Dr.B.J. Rajesh issued Ex.A3/injury certificate, which reveals the said injuries sustained by the petitioner and Ex.C1 case sheet issued by Yashoda Hospital discloses the nature of treatment underwent by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by her. The evidence of PW.2 further reveals that their hospital issued Ex.C1, which discloses that the petitioner took inpatient treatment from 10.11.2015 to 14.11.2015 and surgery was conducted on 12.11.2015 for evacuation of hematoma, debridement was done. In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwent by her, the Tribunal has granted reasonable amounts under different heads like pain and suffering, medical expenses, extra nourishment, transportation charges etc., and thus this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. With regard to loss of earnings, the appellant has stated that she is a tailor. It is a common observation that many ladies do tailoring work to support their living. However, the petitioner has not filed any proof of her income. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- per month which appears to be reasonable. Thus. Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings is awarded observing that she might have taken two months for recovery. Thus, it is opined that the Tribunal has passed a well- reasoned order granting an amount of Rs.2,81,000/- towards compensation which is found to be just and reasonable. Hence, point No.3 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.4:- In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 to 3, the order and decree passed by the Tribunal needs to be modified on the liability aspect. Hence, point No.3 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.4:- In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 to 3, the order and decree passed by the Tribunal needs to be modified on the liability aspect. The insurance company is exonerated from its liability of paying compensation while the owner of the qualis bearing AP-25-N-8866 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. 16. Point No.5:- In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the Order and Decree dated 07.04.20221 in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and it is held that the insurance company is exonerated while the owner of the qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, with regard to the amount of compensation that is already deposited by the Insurance Company, it shall recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.