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. 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 Tribunal should examine the terms of the policy produced by the insurer and in the event of denial of liability, the finding should be recorded with regard to the nature of the policy, as to whether it is 'Act policy' or 'package policy'. In the instant case, the Tribunal has not given any definite findings in this regard. 8. In the instant case, the Tribunal has not given any definite findings in this regard. 8. In the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. v. A. Meenakshi, 2009 ACJ 2218 (Madras), the deceased was a passenger in a vehicle and on account of negligence of the driver, the accident took place, leading to the death of the passenger and the legal heirs of the deceased claimed compensation. The insurance company disputed the claim on the ground that the passengers who travelled in the car were gratuitous passengers and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended by them that on payment of an additional premium under the insurance policy, coverage can be extended to five unnamed persons, for a capital sum of Rs. 70,000 each, in terms of India Motor Tariff (IMT) 16 and, therefore, even if the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, its liability can be restricted to only Rs. 70,000 and not more than that. After considering the policy and the limits of liability, set out in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Division Bench held that a comprehensive/package policy covers the risk of the occupants also and, therefore, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation. 9. In Sagar Chand Phool Chand Jain v. Santosh Gupta, 1985 ACJ 585 (Delhi), Delhi High Court held that when the contract of policy describes it as a contract for 'private car (comprehensive)' and provides for liability to third parties, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the car. 10. Under the India Motor Tariff (IMT), different types of policies are issued and they are contained in IMT section 7 (page 107 of IMT). They are: (a) Standard form for liability only policy. (b) Standard form for private car package policy. (c) Standard form for two-wheeler package policy. (d) Standard form for commercial vehicles package policy. (e) Standard form for motor trade package policy and the like. Each policy is split into different sections to deal with different contingencies and the parties bind themselves to the terms of the clause contained in each section of the policy. (c) Standard form for two-wheeler package policy. (d) Standard form for commercial vehicles package policy. (e) Standard form for motor trade package policy and the like. Each policy is split into different sections to deal with different contingencies and the parties bind themselves to the terms of the clause contained in each section of the policy. For example, the package policy for a private car which is applicable to the present case contains: Section I-Loss of or damage to the vehicle insured, Section II-Liability to third parties, Section III-Personal accident cover for owner-driver. There are other conditions and limits. In this appeal, we are concerned with the liability of the insurance company in respect of gratuitous passengers/occupants in a private vehicle (car). The first policy in section 6 of IMT is liability only policy or Act only policy. In that the liability to third parties is set out as hereunder: "Liability to third parties: (i) Subject to the limit of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto, the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle anywhere in India against all sums including claimant's costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured up to the limit specified in the schedule." 11. In the instant case, the specific contention of the insurance company is that in an 'Act policy' the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death or bodily injuries suffered by the inmates of the car. A perusal of the insurance policy, Exh. P8, clearly shows that it is Act policy. Only a comprehensive/package policy would cover the liability of inmates of a car or pillion rider on a scooter and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 12. No arguments were advanced with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal also seems to be very reasonable. Therefore. I do not see any reason to upset the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. 12. No arguments were advanced with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal also seems to be very reasonable. Therefore. I do not see any reason to upset the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In the result: (i) The appeal is allowed. No costs. (ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is upheld. (iii) The respondent No. 2, owner of Tata Sumo car, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs. 3,20,200 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) On such deposit being made by the respondent No. 2, owner of Tata Sumo car, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, after following due process of law. (v) The appellant insurance company is exonerated from paying the compensation amount and it is at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount, if already deposited by it.