JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. The insurer has assailed the award dated 20.10.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III) Mandi, whereby a compensation amount of Rs.14,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded to the dependants of deceased late Sh. Duni Chand.

2. Bare minimum factual position required to be noticed in the instant appeal is that on 02.06.2009, Sh. Duni Chand was returning to his home after attending his duty in Government Primary School Samkhetar, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi. He boarded Matiz Car bearing Registration No.HP-33-0037 from Village Bhadyara, owned and driven by one Sh. Chaman Lal. After covering a distance of about 200 meters, the vehicle met with an accident. The owner-cum-driver of the Car-Sh. Chaman Lal and Sh. Duni Chand died on the spot. After going through the pleadings and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Tribunal below held that Sh. Duni Chand died on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle’s driver-cum-owner Sh. Chaman Lal. Considering various parameters, the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.14,06,000/- from the legal heirs of Sh. Chaman Lal, owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question, to be indemnified by the appellant. Aggrieved, the assurance company has preferred the instant appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Contentions:-

The concise argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that deceased Sh. Duni Chand was an occupant of a private vehicle, which met with an accident. The vehicle was not comprehensively insured by Sh. Chaman Lal (owner-cum-driver) with the appellant. It was only an ‘Act Policy’ purchased by him covering third party basic risk. The deceased as an occupant of the private car would not fall within the definition of third party. The insurance policy not being a Comprehensive Policy and being only an ‘Act Policy’, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner in respect of any liability towards death/injury caused to the occupant of the private car.

Whereas, learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 11-legal heirs of owner-cum-driver (Sh. Chaman Lal) supported the award imposing the liability to indemnify the owner upon the Assurance Company.

4. Observations:-

4(i). The question as to whether under a comprehensive/package policy, the insurance company is liable to compensate for death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car, came for adjudication before the Delhi High Court in 2011 ACJ 1415, titled Yashpal Luthra and another V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. It was a case where the motorcycle in question was insured under a package insurance policy. The insurance company contested the claim petition on the ground that risk of pillion rider on a two-wheeler was not covered in a comprehensive/package insurance policy. The Court examined the Deputy Manager of the Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and he deposed that ‘all the insurance companies are liable to pay compensation in respect of occupants in a private car w.e.f. 25.3.1977 and in respect of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler w.e.f. 2.6.1986 under the Comprehensive/ Package Policy.’ He also deposed that Insurance Company is not liable in respect of pillion rider on a scooter and occupant in a car in respect of Act Policy, which only covers the risk towards third party. Relevant para from the judgment in this regard is extracted hereinafter:-

“17. On 26th October, 2009, the Deputy Manager of TAC was examined under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and he deposed that all the Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation in respect of occupants in a private car w.e.f. 25th March, 1977 and in respect of a pillion rider on a twowheeler w.e.f. 2nd June, 1986 under the comprehensive/ package policy. The relevant statement of the Deputy Manager of IRDA (Mr. K.O. An