ORDER : 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment of award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in M.V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2010 by which the liability has been fixed to pay the compensation amount on the Insurance Company. 2. On 08.06.2005, the offending vehicle-Jeep bearing Registration No. OR-15A-2152 met with an accident in which the passengers on the vehicle, who were the members of the marriage party, sustained grievous injuries and one of them namely, Bhagwan Sharma, died. The claimants/ respondents are the legal heirs and dependents of Bhagwan Sharma in whose favour the award has been allowed by the Tribunal. 3. This appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of the appellant company in an act only policy vide the insurance certificate (Exhibit 4) which did not cover the risk of the passengers of the vehicle. 4. It is argued that since the occupants of the vehicle were not covered, therefore, liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagtar Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar , (2018) 15 SCC 189 . 5. As per the direction of this Court, total compensation amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was deposited with the Tribunal out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants. 6. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the respondent that plea being raised at this stage, was neither pleaded nor any evidence was lead on that point before the Tribunal. The vehicle was validly insured therefore, compensation has been awarded against the Insurance Company. It is argued that the vehicle was not taken on hire, as per the deposition of P.W. 1 at Para 8. P.W. 2- Prabhu Sharma has also deposed at para 13 that the vehicle was not hired. It is contended that these statements came in the cross-examination and therefore, it cannot be safely concluded that the vehicle was not being used for commercial purpose. 7. P.W. 2- Prabhu Sharma has also deposed at para 13 that the vehicle was not hired. It is contended that these statements came in the cross-examination and therefore, it cannot be safely concluded that the vehicle was not being used for commercial purpose. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents-claimants that the vehicle was not being used for commercial purpose as it has come in the deposition of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who have stated that the vehicle was not taken on hire and was carrying a Barat party when the unfortunate accident took place. 8. The main point for determination is whether the occupants of the vehicle were covered under the policy of insurance in the event of non-commercial use of vehicle. 9. Policy of Insurance has been adduced into evidence and has been marked as Exhibit 4 from which it will be evident that it was a Policy-A liability only and the period of insurance was from 12.04.2005 to 11.04.2006. 10. On account of the policy issued by the appellant being ‘act only’ policy, as clearly indicated as ‘A Liability Only’ and nowhere any additional premium covering risk of passenger has been mentioned, therefore in view of the ratio laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Shimla v. Tilak Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 404 and Jagtar Singh (supra), the Insurance Company shall not be liable to cover the risk of the occupants of the vehicle who died in the accident. It will only be the owner of the vehicle, who is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Impugned Judgment so far as it saddles liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount is concerned, is set aside. Insurance Company will have right to recovery with respect to the amount which has already been paid by it to the claimant against the owner of the vehicle. 11. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. 12. Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the claim application is permitted to be refunded to the Insurance Company.