''9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has not been disputed that originally the Insurance Company was not impleaded as party respondent in the Claim Petition. It was at the instance of the Transport Corporation, the Tribunal by its order impleaded the Insurance Company. The appellant Insurance Company took a very specific and categorical defense that although the Zen Car was insured, but the policy was an Act Policy, and no additional premium was paid for covering the risk of occupants of the car. In spite of the above said admitted position, the Tribunal without recording any finding with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company proceeded on the basis that since there was head on collision between the bus and the car, the liability should be apportioned at the ratio of 2:1. We are of the view that the Tribunal committed error of law in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount. As noticed above, the insurance policy of the car, which was a private car, was an Act Policy, and therefore, the occupants of the car were not covered under the policy. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jhuma Saha reported in 2007 ACJ 818 (SC), the fact of the case was that the deceased was the owner of the vehicle, a Maruti Van. While he was driving the said vehicle, it dashed with a tree and the owner of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vehicle succumbed to the injuries. A claim case was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased for
