ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. disputing its liability to cover the risk of the insured Gujarat Electricity Board arising out of judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal, Vadodara dated 02.12.2006. Claimants are widow, minor children and aged parents of the deceased Sureshbhai Rathwa, who was travelling in a truck driven by the driver employed by the Electricity Company, when according to the claimants, on account of rash and negligent driving, the deceased fell of the truck and received fatal injuries. He was, at the time of accident, employed as a helper in GEB, drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- plus other allowances. The Claims Tribunal held the driver of the truck solely negligent and awarded compensation of Rs.10,19,516/- to be paid by the employer-GEBV and appellant-Insurance Company. Insurance Company has filed this appeal only in connection with its legal liability. Neither GEB nor Insurance Company has disputed the computation of compensation. I may therefore refer to this singular angle arising in the appeal. 2. According to the Counsel for the Insurance Company, the insurance policy was a mere 'act policy' and did not expand beyond statutory liabilities arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel would draw my attention to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contend that the liability of the Insurance Company would be limited and did not extend to cover the risk of the employee travelling in the vehicle. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., reported in 2007 ACJ, page No.1284 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smitaben Wd/o Bhogilal Jagjivandas Gadhia dated 07.02.2012 in First Appeal No.2214 of 1999, in which following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Meena Variyal (supra), it was held that the insurance policy which was merely an act policy would not include the risk of a passenger in the vehicle who was travelling during the course of employment. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. R.V. Acharya and Mr. K.T. Dave appearing for the GEB and the driver respectively contended that no such contention was raised before the Claims Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. R.V. Acharya and Mr. K.T. Dave appearing for the GEB and the driver respectively contended that no such contention was raised before the Claims Tribunal. The issue is a mixed question of facts and law and therefore cannot be allowed to be raised at first appellate stage. They further point out that the deceased was employed as a helper and was travelling in a truck as a loader. In the claim petition as well as in the depositions of one of the claimants and the officer of the GEB, this aspect has been brought out. They point out that the insurance policy covered risk of the helper travelling in the vehicle. 4. I have perused the claim petition as well as replies filed by the Electricity Company and the Insurance Company. The claimants had contended that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a helper. He was helping loading and unloading the goods. This had also come on record during the evidence of the claimants. GEB also in its written statement had taken a similar stand. The Insurance Company's only objection was that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle, which amounted to breach of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. No other legal contention was raised. Thus, the question whether the deceased was a helper and therefore, the policy would cover his risk was never gone into by the Claims Tribunal. This was a pure question of facts and the ultimate conclusion would depend upon the conclusions of facts which apply to the evidence on record. In absence of any specific objection by the Insurance Company in the written statement and during the conduct of the trial, it would not be possible to examine such a contention for the first time in this appeal. Counsel Shri Mehta, however, vehemently contended that even if the deceased was a helper, the risk of the Insurance Company would be limited to the workman compensation claim. The Insurance Company cannot be asked to pay the compensation awarded in a motor accident by the Claims Tribunal. It would be too late in the day now to allow the Insurance Company to raise such a contention. The Insurance Company cannot be asked to pay the compensation awarded in a motor accident by the Claims Tribunal. It would be too late in the day now to allow the Insurance Company to raise such a contention. If it was raised at the outset, the claimants could have made their choice pursuing the claim petition to follow the proceedings before the workman compensation mechanism. Under the circumstances, First Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.