JUDGMENT :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - The Impugned award dated 16.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.66/09 has been assailed by the appellant Insurance Company on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal had wrongly fastened the liability upon the insurance company as the policy of the offending vehicle is 'Act Only Policy' and no premium has been paid by the insurer for the occupants of the vehicle.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.1.2009 at 7.30 p.m. deceased Sanjeev Kumar Sawai was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration number CG08-E-8319 for performing his duty as Field Worker. When they reached near Sangli Bridge of village Kotra, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, said motorcycle dashed against the said bridge as a result of which the deceased fell down, sustained fatal injuries on his head and died on the spot. A report of the said accident was lodged with the concerned police station with brief narration as to how accident took place. A claim case was filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 & 2 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,00,000/- under various heads, inter alia, pleading that at the time of accident the deceased was working as Field Supervisor in Christian Fellowship Hospital, Shore Chandmari and getting monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/-. He was also earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from other sources. They were dependent on him, however, on account of untimely death of the deceased a loss of income had occasioned to them and therefore they are entitled to the compensation, as claimed by them.

3. Respondent No.3, driver of offending motorcycle, filed his reply to the claim application stating that the motorcycle is owned by respondent No.4 and on the date of accident he was having valid and effective driving license to drive the said motorcycle. It has been further mentioned that on the date of accident the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company and that he has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him in criminal case.

4. Respondent No.4, owner of offending vehicle, has also filed his reply to the claim application denying the adverse averments pleaded in the claim application stated that the claim application is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Appellant-Insurance Company also filed its reply stating that as the motorcycle in question was insured with it for the period 19.5.2008 to 18.5.2009 under a 'liability only policy', therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation to the claimants on account of death of deceased who was occupant of the vehicle as a pillion rider.

6. After considering the pleadings, evidence and other materials on record, the Claims Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the policy exhibited on record as Ex.D-1A is not 'act only policy' and therefore the claimants are entitled for compensation on account of death of their son in a road accident. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants making the appellant and respondent No.3 & 4, jointly and severally, liable for payment of compensation so awarded.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has admitted that on the date of accident there was a valid insurance policy issued by the appellant covering the risk of the owner of the offending vehicle. However, he submits that the policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle was a 'liability only policy' and not a comprehensive policy. He referred to the Schedule of Premium annexed along with the policy (Ex.D-1A) wherein the premium has been paid with respect to third party basic and compulsory PA to Owner cum driver. He further submitted that as the policy issued in respect of offending vehicle was 'liability only policy', therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable for payment of compensation on acc