Liability of the insurance company under an 'act only policy' does not cover the risk of the occupants of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29/03/2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Additional District Judge, Nohar) in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 79/98. Vide judgment dated 29/03/2001, the appeal of the claimants was allowed and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded as compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a jeep having registration No. D.L.5CA 7203 was insured with the respondent/Insurance Company as a private vehicle and as per the Insurance Cover Note, the Policy was 'act only policy'. The subject vehicle driven by the appellant met with an accident on 24/02/1998. In the accident, one Asha Ram died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. In these circumstances, a claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of Asha Ram before learned Tribunal.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing of the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, awarded the compensation to be paid by the appellant in the present case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 are not correct as the subject vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, the respondent/Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. He submitted that the accident occurred during the currency of the Insurance Cover, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding the driver and owner responsible for paying the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the finding on issue No.3 is clear and categorical to the extent that the subject vehicle was being plied on the road and Asha Ram was a passenger who had paid the consideration for travelling in the jeep. Thus, it can be said that he was a fare pay passenger and was occupant of the subject vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that since the policy cover in the present case was only to the extent of' act only policy', so the risk of the occupant was not covered. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that issue No.3 was correctly decided in the present case by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.696/2003 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur vs. Smt. Sharda Devi & Ors.), decided on 04/08/2016 & National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sahidan Bano, reported in 2015 (2) R.A.R.892 (Raj.).

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant record of the case.

8. The admitted facts in the present case are that the subject vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company on the basis of 'act only policy' and, therefore, no premium was charged on account of the passengers travelling in the said vehicle. Since the risk of those passengers, who were travelling in the vehicle, was not covered, therefore, the death of the occupant of the vehicle Asha Ram is sole responsibility of the owner of vehicle. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation in the present case in view of the judgment of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur vs. Smt. Sharda Devi & Ors., decided on 04/08/2016 & National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sahidan Bano (supra).

9. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur vs. Smt. Sharda Devi & Ors(surpa), this Court held as under :-

"From the very averments made by the claimants in the claim petition and the evidence led by the claimants, it is an admitted position that deceased was occupant of the insured jeep and died when the jeep, which was being driven by the driver, turned turtle. The policy (Exhibit-8) indicates that the same was Priva