JUDGMENT :

R. Hemalatha, J.

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai, respondent No. 2 in MCOP No. 436 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ponneri, has filed the present appeal questioning its liability to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1-claimant.

2. The respondent No. 1-claimant filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 8,46,000 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 8.9.2003 when he was travelling as a passenger in a Tata Sumo car bearing registration No. AP 26-E 7259, belonging to the respondent No. 2 and insured with the present appellant. According to the claimant, when the car was nearing a salt factory at Tada, the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which it toppled and the claimant sustained injuries all over his body. The further contention of the respondent No. 1-claimant is that rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo car, belonging to the respondent No. 2, was the cause of accident and that since the said car was insured with the present appellant, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.

3. The respondent No. 1, owner of Tata Sumo car bearing registration No. AP 26-E 7259, remained absent before the Tribunal and, therefore, she was set ex parte. The present appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the claim petition.

4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ponneri, after analysing the evidence on record, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the claimant. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal.

5. Mr. D. Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that since the respondent No. 1-claimant travelled in Tata Sumo car bearing registration No. AP 26-E 7259 as a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to him. He would further contend that since the insurance company had issued only an 'Act policy', the occupant of the car is not entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company. He relied on the following decisions in

(i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surendra Nath Loomba, 2013 ACJ 321 (SC);

(ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Krishnasamy, 2016 ACJ 5 (Madras);

(iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, 2013 ACJ 199 (SC);

(iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V., 2008 ACJ 2045 (SC); and

(v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC),

and contended that the occupants of a private car cannot be termed as a third party, especially when the car had only 'Act policy' and not 'comprehensive policy'. His specific contention is that no premium was paid for gratuitous passenger/occupant of the car and that the policy covers only the third party risk. He would therefore contend that the Tribunal was wrong in fastening liability on the insurance company.

6. Per contra, Mr. N.R. Anandha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-claimant, would contend that though the policy of insurance is an 'Act policy', the insurance company should be directed to pay compensation to the claimant in the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Reliance was placed upon the following decisions in

(i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N. Appi Reddy, 2013 ACJ 545 (AP);

(ii) Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Senthamarai, 2011 (2) TNMAC 625; and

(iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Labanyabati Dev, 2012 ACJ 2451 (Orissa).

It is pertinent to point out that though the Tribunal had held that the driver of Tata Sumo car bearing registration No. AP 26-E 7259 was responsible for the accident, but it did not give a definite finding with regard to the nature of the policy.

7. While deciding the claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribu