JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. These two appeals were heard analogously though preferred against two separate awards passed by two different tribunals on two different dates nevertheless arising out of the same accident. 2. The accident occurred on 6th August 1995 when the Jeep No. GBR 121 owned by the Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "GEB") and insured by the United India Insurance Company Limited collided with truck No. GJ-17 T-6195 insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The claimants were employees of the GEB and were travelling in the course of their employment for the work of GEB. The Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 13 of 1996 was filed by the claimants, who were injured, while Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1631 of 1995 arose out of a fatal accident and the claim was lodged by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased employee of the GEB. In Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 13 of 1996 against which First Appeal No. 4884 of 2007 has been filed, the tribunal by award dated 1st March 2007 awarded a sum of Rs.41,200/- with costs and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. holding that both the drivers were equally negligent to the extent of 50%. 3. So far Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1631 of 1995 is concerned, the tribunal by an earlier award dated 7th December 2006 awarded a sum of Rs.5,55,156/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. holding that the driver of the GEB vehicle was negligent to the extent of 25% whereas the driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 75%. Against the above judgment, First Appeal No. 146 of 2008 has been filed. 4. Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken a pure question of law in support of these two appeals. According to Mr. Mehta, it would appear from the policy of insurance that the same was "Act policy" and no additional amount of premium was taken for the purpose of insurance of either the driver or any other occupant of the said vehicle. According to Mr. Mehta, such being the position, his client had no liability to pay the amount which is payable by the GEB for the employees carried in the jeep, in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of such contention, Mr. According to Mr. Mehta, such being the position, his client had no liability to pay the amount which is payable by the GEB for the employees carried in the jeep, in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of such contention, Mr. Mehta has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1609 . Mr. Mehta has also relied upon an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Patel Maganbhai Bechardas and Others in First Appeal No. 1743 of 2002 to First appeal No. 1745 of 2002 disposed of on 18th April 2012. 5. In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the insurer of the truck while Mr. M.A. Kharadi appears on behalf of the owner of the truck while Mr. Premal Joshi appears on behalf of the GEB. 6. There is no dispute that the owner and the insurer of the truck as well as the GEB have accepted the award and they have neither filed any appeal nor any cross-objection. 7. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination in these appeals is whether in the fact of the present case the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the jeep owned by the GEB, is liable to pay the amount. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Others (supra), I find substance in the contention of Mr. Mehta that in the case before me the policy being an "Act policy", the insurer is under no liability to pay the compensation for the death or bodily injury of the employees of the GEB, who were travelling in the jeep. It appears that in the facts similar to the present one, a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1743-1745 of 2002 arrived at the same view by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Others (supra). 9. Although Mr. It appears that in the facts similar to the present one, a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1743-1745 of 2002 arrived at the same view by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Others (supra). 9. Although Mr. Joshi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the GEB, tried to impress upon this Court that the point now sought to be raised before this Court was not taken before the tribunal below and this Court should not entertain such point, I am not impressed by such submission, inasmuch as, in the written statement filed by the appellant, a specific plea was taken that apart from what is mentioned in the insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay any other amount. The insurance policy is on record. Such being the position, it requires no new investigation of fact for the purpose of answering the question raised by Mr. Mehta. Thus, I find no substance in the above contention of Mr. Joshi. 10. On consideration of the entire materials on record, I allow these two appeals by modifying the liability of the appellant insurance company to the extent that the liability of the appellant fixed by the awards impugned will be borne by the Gujarat Electricity Board, the owner of the jeep. I do not disturb any other portion of the awards as the other parties to these proceedings have not challenged the awards. However, the share of money payable by the GEB having been deposited, as a condition of stay earlier granted by this Court, the said money shall be disbursed to the claimants but the insurance company, the appellant herein, shall be entitled to recover from GEB the amount with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the same is returned by the GEB. I direct the GEB to return the amount to the appellant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both these appeals are, thus, disposed of with above direction. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.