THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1987 of 2003 and 2828 of 2005 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Tribunal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. C.M.A.No.1987 of 2003 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the order and decree, dated 26.09.2002, passed by the District Judge- cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khammam, in O.P.No.996 of 1998, questioning the quantum of compensation, whereas C.M.A.No.2828 of 2005 is filed by the claimants as against the very same order, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the owner of the vehicle cannot be treated as a third party and therefore, there cannot be any claim by the owner, more particularly when the policy does not cover the risk of the owner, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to allow the appeal filed by the insurer. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd V. Jhuma Saha[1], wherein it was held that the owner of the vehicle can claim compensation only when personal accident insurance policy is taken out and in the absence of the same, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 5. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the policy, though a comprehensive one, does cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle or not? 6. In the instant case, it appears that the owner of the vehicle while he was travelling in his own vehicle, driven by his driver, met with an accident and died. The claimants filed the said O.P. seeking compensation for the death of the deceased and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, for the death of the deceased-Mitikala Sydulu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.12.1997. 7. From the two judgments cited supra, it is obvious that the question to be decided in the present appeals is no longer res integra inasmuch as it has been stated that the owner of the vehicle cannot be treated on par with a third party. From the policy, which was marked as Ex.B-1, it appears that it is a comprehensive policy, but no risk of the owner of the vehicle is covered nor there is any premium paid covering the risk of the owner of the vehicle. 8. The basic principle is that unless and until the liability is fastened against the owner, no liability can be fastened against the insurer of the vehicle. Therefore, when the owner himself has been injured and the said risk is not covered by the policy by paying any premium, the said risk cannot be redeemed by the insurer. In other words, the role of the insurer does not arise at all inasmuch as the owner himself had suffered the injury or death. 9. In the instant case, it is the owner of the vehicle who died in the accident of his own vehicle. Therefore, no liability can be fastened against the owner and consequently, no liability can be fastened against the insurer. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be allowed and the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, C.M.A.No.2828 of 2005 is dismissed and C.M.A.No.1987 of 2003 is allowed, setting aside the order and decree, dated 26.09.2002, passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khammam, in O.P.No.996 of 1998. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 05th August 2010 dr [1] 2007 (3) ALT 57 (SC)