( 2025:HHC:25808 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 4208 of 2013. Reserved on: 22.07.2025. Decided on : 4 th August , 2025. The National Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant. Versus Smt. Shakuntla Devi & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocae. For the respondents: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. By way of instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), the appellant/insurer has assailed the Award dated 06.08.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. , whereby the claimants (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) in Claim Petition bearing M.A.C. No. 5 of 2010 have been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.18,39,956/- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:25808 ) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till deposit of the amount and the insurer (appellant herein) has been held liable to satisfy the award. 2. Claimants being wife, children and mother of the deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act against respondent No.5 herein (hereinafter referred to as “owner- cum-driver”) and the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer”) for compensation on account of death of Lal Singh in an accident involving the motor vehicle (car) No. HP- 27A-2777. 3. It was alleged that on 30.8.2009 deceased Lal Singh along with the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle was traveling in Car No. HP-27A-2777. At place near Sayasho bridge, the vehicle went off the road and rolled down into a deep gorge. 4. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver. 5. The deceased was working as JBT teacher in Government Primary School, Thangi, District Kinnaur and was drawing salary of Rs.19,340/- per month. In addition, the deceased was stated to be earning additional income of Rs.5000/- per month from agriculture. Thus, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. 3 ( 2025:HHC:25808 ) 6. The owner-cum-driver contested the petition and denied the cause of accident to be his rash and negligent driving. He disclosed about the factum of vehicle being under insurance with the insurer. 7. The insurer in its separate reply raised the objection as to the maintainability of the petition and alleged the breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It was alleged that the insurer was under no contractual liability with the insured to indemnify the occupants of the private car. 8. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the deceased Lal Singh died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of Alto Car No. HP-27A-2777 which was being driven by its driver Chander Kant respondent No.1 on 30.08.2009, at Sayasho Bridge, Tehsil Pooh, Distt. Kannaur?OPP. 2) If Issue No.1 supra is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners are entitled to ?OPP 3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged?OPR-2 4) Whether the offending vehicle was being plied without valid documents?OPR-2 5) Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question on the relevant date and time as a gratuitous passenger, if so, its effect?OPR-2. 6) Relief.” 4 ( 2025:HHC:25808 ) 9. Issues No.1, 2 and 6 were answered in the affirmative, whereas, rest of the issues were answered in the negative. The claim petition was allowed and the claimants have been awarded compensation as noticed above. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 11. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate representing the insurer would contend that the policy of insurance purchased by the owner-cum-driver was an “Act Only Policy” and thus the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured on account of compensation payable for death of the occupant of the vehicle which was a private car. Reference was made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Balkrishan and & Ors, (2013)1 SCC 731, National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors., (1988)1 SCC 626, FAO No.403/2010 titled as Oriental Insurance Company vs. Sudarshana & Ors, decided by a coordinate bench of this Court on 08.09.2016 and FAO No. 73 of 2013, titled as New India Insurance Company vs. Shakulta & Ors. decided by another coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.08.2023. 12. Learned Tribunal has rendered a categoric finding that the policy of insurance in this case was a Package Policy. 5 ( 2025:HHC:25808 ) Such a conclusion was drawn by the learned Tribunal by taking into consideration the fact that in the policy Ex.RW1/C, reference was made to Section II-I (i) and Section II-I(ii) which according to learned Tribunal were part of Indian Motor Tariff prescribed by the Tariff Advisory Committee under Section 64(4) of the Insurance Act, 1938 and related to Package Policy only. 13. After perusal of the document i.e. policy of insurance, Ex. RW1/C the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. It bears a clear reference to Section II-I(i) while prescribing the limit of liability. 14. The reference to Section II-1(i) in the policy in fact is one of the terms and conditions incorporated in the Standard Private Car Package Policy or Standard Motor Package Policy which reads as under:- “LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES 1. Subject to the limits of liability 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 of 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 6 ( 2025:HHC:25808 ) Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured, (ii) Damage to property other than property belonging to the insured for held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured.” (emphasis added) 15. Since, the policy Ex.RW1/C has reference to Section II-I(i) of the Standard Private Car Package Policy or the Standard Motor Package Policy, the inference drawn by the learned Tribunal cannot be questioned. 16. Dealing with similar clause in a policy of insurance involving private car, this Court in FAO No. 57 of 2017 along with FAO No. 91 of 2017, titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Param Jeet Kaur & Ors. And Param Jeet Kaur & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 10.04.2025 has held that in case of package/comprehensive policy, the insurer cannot avoid its liability to indemnify the insured for compensation on account of death or bodily injury to the occupant of the private car. 17. While deciding the above noted FAO No.57 of 2017, this Court had taken into consideration the similar view as was considered by a coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7.05.2024 in FAO No.104 of 2019, titled as 7 ( 2025:HHC:25808 ) Nand Lal & another vs. Manohar Lal & another, Latest HLJ 2024 (HP) (1) 596, which view stood affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing the insurer’s Special Leave Petition (C) No. 49609/2024 vide order dated 22.11.2024. 18. The precedents relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel will not help the cause of the insurer in the instant case for the reason that the facts herein involved the existence of Package/Comprehensive Policy and in the cases relied upon on behalf of the insurer, it has been held that the occupants of a private car with “Act Only Policy” are not covered under the policy of insurance. 19. In result, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned award is affirmed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 20. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 4th August, 2025. (jai)