JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant, who was respondent No. 4 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 03.11.2012, passed by    the learned Tribunal, whereby Claim Petition No. 12/2010, filed by the petitioners-claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,28,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the entire amount and respondent No. 4/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.2006, Neelma Devi, was travelling in Indica Car bearing registration No. HP-23A-0074, which was being driven by respondent No. 3, Jeet Ram in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the car rolled down from the road and as a result of which, Neelma Devi sustained injuries on her forehead. The claimants, who were also travelling in the aforesaid vehicle, also sustained injuries in the accident. After the accident, the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, where Neelma Devi was declared dead. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, the  deceased was 54 years of age and was running a stitching centre at Taleli Bazar, Tehsil Sundernagar and earning Rs. 5,500/- per month. Besides stitching centre, she was also earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from selling milk. As such, her monthly income was Rs. 7,500/- per month. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No. 3, driver of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition by filing reply and admitted the accident, however, he denied that the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. It has been submitted by the replying respondent that he was an experienced driver and doing his job as a driver for many years and was having a valid and effective driving licence. 4. It has been submitted by the replying respondent that he was an experienced driver and doing his job as a driver for many years and was having a valid and effective driving licence. 4. Respondent No. 4/Insurance Company in its reply submitted that the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid driving licence and there is a specific violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has been denied that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. It  has also been submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. On 03.05.2011, the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether Smt. Neelma Devi died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 23.10.2006 at about 11:30 A.M. at Badon within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sarkaghat, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP23-A-0074 being driven by respondent No. 3, as alleged. OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-4 4. Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondent No. 3, as alleged? OPR-4 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-4 6. Relief.” 6. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition was allowed and the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,28,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum  from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the entire amount and respondent No. 4/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the same. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 03.11.2012. 8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the entire record. 9. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 03.11.2012. 8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the entire record. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the claimants are not entitled for the compensation since it is a clear cut case of collusion, as driver of the vehicle, Jeet Ram, is father of the claimants, who himself was negligent in driving the vehicle and thus, he cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. She further contended that respondent No. 3, Jeet Ram, i.e. driver of the vehicle had borrowed the vehicle from his brother-in-law and there was no tortfeasor involved, because the moment he borrowed the vehicle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and he cannot be recipient of compensation and his legal  representatives are not entitled for compensation. 10. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 11. From the perusal of the record, it has become clear that on 23.10.2006, while Neelma Devi was travelling in Indica Car bearing registration No. HP-23A-0074, alongwith the claimants, the car rolled down from the road, causing her death, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, Jeet Ram, who was husband of deceased Neelma Devi. 12. Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the claimants who are the daughters of the deceased are entitled for compensation with respect to the death of their mother, i.e. Neelma Devi, while the offending vehicle was being driven by their father, Jeet Ram. 13. At the very outset, it may be pertinent to mention here that the insurance can be of two types, i.e., comprehensive/package policy of a private vehicle, which covers the insurance of the passengers traveling in the same  and the other policy is known as “Liability Only Policy”, wherein only the risk of the owner-driver is covered, but 3rd party risk of an occupant of a private vehicle is not covered. 14. 14. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company had placed on record copy of Insurance Policy with respect to the offending vehicle, perusal whereof, shows that at the time of accident, the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and it was a Package Policy covering the risk of the passengers traveling in the vehicle in question. 15. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balakrishnan and Another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while making a distinction between an "act only policy" and "Comprehensive/package policy" made following observation:- “26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the  insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a  “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.” 16. In the instant case also, it is not in dispute that on that on 23.10.2006, Neelma Devi (since deceased), was travelling in Indica Car bearing registration No. HP-23A-0074 which met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver Jeet Ram as a result of which, Neelma Devi sustained injuries on her forehead and later on she died. The claim petition has been filed by the daughters of the deceased who are her legal representatives. The claim petition has been filed by the daughters of the deceased who are her legal representatives. The Insurance Policy was Comprehensive/Package Policy in which the risk of the passengers traveling in the car in question was duly covered. The appellant/Insurance Company has failed to prove on record any collusion  between the claimants and the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the learned Tribunal below had rightly arrived at a conclusion that the amount of compensation shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant next contended that respondent No. 3, Jeet Ram, i.e. driver of the vehicle had borrowed the vehicle from his brother-inlaw and there was no tortfeasor involved, because the moment he borrowed the vehicle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and he cannot be recipient of compensation and his legal representatives are not entitled for compensation. However, in the reply, no averment to this effect have been made by the appellant/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal below. In Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and Another (2008)7 SCC 305 Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar circumstance and observed as follows: "11. ........................................It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which,  in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 18. In Modern Insulators Ltd. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2000)2 SCC734 Hon’ble Supreme Court while again considering the fact of a new ground raised in appeal held as follows: "10. We may refer to the next ground on which the appeal has to be allowed. It is a settled position of law that in an appeal the parties cannot urge new facts. From the pleadings of the respondent before the State Commission it is found that the respondent pleaded that the property damaged was not covered under the insurance policy. We may refer to the next ground on which the appeal has to be allowed. It is a settled position of law that in an appeal the parties cannot urge new facts. From the pleadings of the respondent before the State Commission it is found that the respondent pleaded that the property damaged was not covered under the insurance policy. This plea was given a go- by before the National Commission and a new plea was taken up in the grounds of appeal that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated by the appellant by using used kiln furniture. The National Commission accepted this new ground and allowed the appeal, which in our opinion is not sustainable in law." 19. In view of the settled position of law as expounded by the Supreme Court hereinabove, it needs no reiteration that a new ground cannot be urged in appeal when it was not raised before the Learned MACT. Hence, the contention that respondent No. 3, Jeet Ram, i.e. driver of the vehicle had borrowed the vehicle from his brother-in-law and there was no tortfeasor involved and his legal representatives are not entitled for compensation is not sustainable in law and is accordingly rejected. 20. In view of my aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. 21. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of any merit is dismissed and the impugned award dated 03.11.2012 is upheld. 24. No other point was urged before me. 25. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.