The main legal point established is that under an 'act only policy', the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for passengers traveling in a vehicle, as interpreted from the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above appeals are finally heard and decided.

2. Both the above appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Tribunal in two claim petitions preferred by the respondents-claimants, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The instant appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.07.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos.28/1997& 29/1997 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- and Rs.2,77,000/- respectively in favour of the respondents - claimants.

4. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the parties, decided the claim petitions filed by the respondents-claimants and awarded the compensation as mentioned hereinabove.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has assailed the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3. On the basis of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company V/s Satpal Singh & ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 235, wherein it was held that the occupants of the vehicle whether private or commercial will be construed as third party and therefore, their risk will be covered and the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel further submits that it has come on record that the Kesa Ram and Rupa Ram were traveling in a Jeep were the passengers and had paid rent for traveling in the Jeep, therefore, their risk is not covered by the insurance company as the insurance policy of the jeep was an "act only policy" which is apparent from the policy produced on record as Ex.A2. He submits that as per the 'Act only' policy, the risk of the passengers traveling in the insured vehicle was not covered and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satpal Singh (supra) expressly overruled the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Asha

7. Rani & Ors. and the same has been relied by coordinate bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Smt. Sahidan Bano w/o Shree Kursheed & Ors. The counsel for the appellant insurance company further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s Meena Variyal & Ors., specifically held that the passengers traveling in a private vehicle will not be construed as third party. Therefore, in view of the submissions made above, the counsel submits that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 is absolutely incorrect and the same is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that since the risk of the passengers traveling in the jeep was not covered and the policy was only an 'act only policy', therefore, the liability to pay the compensation in the present case cannot be fastened on the appellant insurance company.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 does not suffer from any infirmity as the law prevailing at the time of passing the judgment was taken note of by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No.3. To make distinction between 'act only policy' and 'comprehensive policy' the counsel has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shiv Lochan Singh @ Bhola V/s National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. as well as judgment of Hon'ble Karnatka High Court in the case of Pintu V/s Sri Umalu & Anr. Whereby the Punjab & Haryana High Court discussed the matter at a great length and two High Courts have come to the conclusion that the insurance company is under the obligation to sat