S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the appellant and learned advocates Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar as well as Ms. Sharmishta A. Dave for the concerned respondents. Perused the record.

2. The appellant herein is original claimant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 533 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.) of Rajkot. Such petition was preferred by the appellant claiming Rs. 8,00,000 towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident which took place on 7.10.2000 between two vehicles being Matador No. GBQ 2257 and truck No. GJ 11-T 9924.

3. It is undisputed fact that appellant-claimant being victim of the road accident was passenger in such Matador and he was not driving any of the vehicles and, therefore, by all means, this is the case of composite negligence between more than one tortfeasor, herein two tortfeasors, drivers of both the vehicles under reference and, therefore, it is settled legal position that the claimant, being third party to the incident and insurance companies of both vehicles, is entitled to recover full amount of compensation from either of the tortfeasors irrespective of their inter se liability based upon percentage of negligence of both such tortfeasors, i.e., drivers of both the vehicles.

4. It is also undisputed fact that the claimant has claimed compensation contending that both the drivers were negligent and, therefore, owners and insurance companies of both the vehicles were joined as opponents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, after allowing both the sides to adduce their evidence, come to the conclusion that looking to the available evidence before it driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 20 per cent whereas driver of Matador was negligent to the extent of 80 per cent. However, as aforesaid, irrespective of fixing such different percentage of negligence of different drivers of different vehicles, the claimant is entitled to recover full amount of compensation from either of the tortfeasors because as aforesaid, he is third party both to the incident and to the insurance companies of both the vehicles.

5. However, unfortunately, the Tribunal has, in para 5 of the impugned judgment and award dated 1.3.2014, observed that though claimant is entitled to total amount of Rs. 4,60,000 as compensation, the owner and insurer of Matador has to pay 80 per cent of such amount, i.e., Rs. 3,68,000 and owner and insurer of truck has to pay 20 per cent of the amount, i.e., Rs. 92,000 only. The Tribunal has also directed the drivers and owners of both the vehicles to deposit their amount of share in operative order. Therefore, practically, insurance companies of both the vehicles have to pay the compensation to the claimant so as to indemnify their insured-owner of the vehicles.

6. It seems that after such award, the original opponent No. 2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., who is respondent No. 2 herein being insurer of Matador has preferred an application being Motor Accident Claims (Review) Application No. 5 of 2014 before the Tribunal contending that the vehicle insured by them was only by 'Act policy' whereby the owner of the vehicle has insured himself only towards his liability to pay compensation to the third party and not for all kind of victims including occupant of the vehicle. The respondent insurance company has also referred few judgments of the different courts to confirm that in case of 'Act only policy', liability of insurance company cannot be fixed for the injuries sustained by the victim as occupant of the vehicle. Unfortunately, while allowing such application by order dated 26.11.2014, the Tribunal has observed and held as under:

"Going through the judgment cited by Mr. Modha, learned advocate for the insurance company, it appears that in the case of 'Act only policy' and in case of error of the Tribunal, apparent on the face of the record is maintainable. In case of 'Act only policy', the insurance c