1. Admit.

2. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides for final disposal.

3. The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of MACP No.256 of 2010 which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Jalna. The petition filed by present respondent Nos.1 to 3 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is allowed and the compensation of Rs.7.5 lakh with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is granted by the Tribunal and the Insurance Company is made liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation along with the owner.

4. The petition was filed in respect of death of Shrimant Misal, who was husband of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is minor son of deceased and respondent No.3 is widowed mother of the deceased.

5. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased and his two colleagues had taken a Toyoto Qualis jeep bearing No.MH-15-A-9349 on hire basis from the owner and they were proceeding to Jalna. This jeep allegedly collided with one unknown vehicle at 10 to 11 p.m. near Pulgaon. Shrimant died in the incident. It is contended by the claimants that the accident took place due to fault of the drivers of both the vehicles. The claim was made only against the owner and the Insurance Company of Jeep No.MH-15-A-9349.

6. The owner admitted the fact of the accident. He contended that his son was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and he was holding valid driving licence. The owner took the defence that there was no fault on the part of the driver of his vehicle and the accident took place due to fault of the driver of the unknown vehicle. The owner contended that, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 Insurance Company of the claim petition and the Insurance Company must indemnify him in view of the insurance.

7. The Insurance Company, appellant, filed Written Statement and contested the petition. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was a passenger in a private vehicle. It is contended that the risk to the passengers in the vehicle was not covered under the policy and so the Insurance Company is not liable to pay anything by way of compensation.

8. The claimants examined witnesses to prove the negligence of the driver of the jeep and to prove the income. The owner of the jeep and the Insurance Company did not examine witnesses. The record like police papers and policy of insurance was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the driver of the jeep and the driver of the unknown vehicle were equally responsible for the accident. The Tribunal relied on the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case reported as 2010 (3) T.A.C. 480 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. Secunderabad v. Palamoni Suresh). On the basis of the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Tribunal held that passengers in a private vehicle need to be treated as "third party". In view of this, the Tribunal held the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation even when the Tribunal found that it was "Act Only Policy".

9. The submissions made and the contentions raised show that the Insurance Company has challenged the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal. It was submitted that when the owner had purchased "Act Only Policy", no premium was paid in respect of the passengers of the jeep, there was no cover to the risk to the passengers.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has placed reliance on many reported cases. He also relied on the case of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as LAWS (APH)-2011-10-40 (ALT- 2012-1-778) (New India Assurance Company Lt. v. Palamoni Suresh). It appears that the aforesaid decision given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred by the Tribunal was subjected to the review in Review Petition No.1921 of 2011. The same Hon'ble Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decided the review petition and held that the af