JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Appellant driver has preferred the present appeal claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the respondent-insurer may kindly be held liable to indemnify the awarded amount. Or in the alternative the amount of compensation may kindly be reduced suitably."

2. The unfortunate accident happened on 24.12.2003 at about 4:00 PM when the deceased Bhanwar Singh was sitting as a pillion rider on motorcycle no.MH-3/Y-4722 which was being driven by the appellant Moti Singh.

3. XXX XXX XXX XXX

3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the factual matrix of the details are not disputed, therefore, the only question arising is whether the package policy insuring the motorcycle would cover the liability of a pillion rider.

3.2 Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn attention of this Court to the policy conditions which are on record and particularly, Section-II thereof, which is dealing with the liability to third parties, relevant para 1 whereof reads as follows :-

"Section II - Liability to Third Parties

1. Subject to the limits of liabilities as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of -

i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.

ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in turst or in the custody or control of the insured.

PROVIDED ALWAYS that the Company shall not be liable in respect of death injury or damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriage way or thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of the load to the vehicle forloading thereon or the taking away of the load from the vehicle after unloading there from."

3.3 Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and another, (2013) 1 SCC 731 , relevant paras no.19 to 29 whereof read as follows :-

"19. On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear as crystal that the decisions that have been referred to in Bhagyalakshmi involved only "Act Policies". The Bench felt that the matter would be different if the Tariff Advisory Committee seeks to enforce its decision in regard to coverage of third party risk which would include an occupant in a vehicle. It is worth noting that the Bench referred to certain decisions of Delhi High Court and Madras High Court and thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Be it noted, in the said case, the Court was dealing with comprehensive policy which is also called a package policy. In that context, in the earlier part of the judgment, the Bench had stated thus: (SCC p.153, para 13)

"13. The policy in question is a package policy. The contract of insurance if given its face value covers the risk not only of a third party but also of persons travelling in the car including the owner thereof. The question is as to whether the policy in question is a comprehensive policy or only an Act policy."

20. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Bench in Bhagyalakshmi had made a distinction between the "Act policy" and "comprehensive policy/package policy". We respectfully concur with the said distinction. The crux of the matter is what would be the liability of the insurer if the policy is a "comprehensive/package policy". We ar