IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 288 of 2006 Smt. Kunti Devi … Appellant. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: 12-6-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award 8-3-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, in MACT Case No. 36 of 1999. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 1-10-1998 Diwan Singh was driving the taxi jeep No. U.P. 01-2678 and at about 9P.M. when he reached near Village Kanda, all of a sudden, the jeep met with accident. The passengers and the driver Diwan Singh sustained injuries and Diwan Singh has died. 3- The Opposite Party filed written statement before the Tribunal and alleged that no information of the accident was communicated to it and denied its liability to pay any compensation. 4- The Tribunal framed issues in the case and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum vide judgment dated 4-1- 2002. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company preferred appeal No. 75 of 2002 which was decided by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24-8- 2 2004 and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal concerned to decide issue No.3 afresh after due notice to the claimants and the insurance company. Thereafter, the Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties, and considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 8-3-2006. 5- Now the claimant has come up in appeal before this Court against the judgment and order dated 8-3-2006. 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material on record. 7- Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has decided the issue No.3 without perusal of the policy and misread the policy and has given perverse finding and the same is liable to be set aside. He also contended that in the policy there is no condition that owner is not entitled to drive the vehicle. The owner/driver was having valid driving license, therefore, compensation should have been awarded for the death of owner/driver in motor accident. 8- I do not find any force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant. The issue no.3 framed in the claim petition is quoted below:- “Whether the alleged vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident?.:” 9- The learned Tribunal has given a categorical finding on issue No.3 that the vehicle in question was 3 comprehensively insured but no premium was paid as per policy for the death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation for the death of the owner of the vehicle. 10- Insurance policy has been filed on record which is a comprehensive policy. No extra premium was paid for the owner of the vehicle. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not require an Insurance Company to cover the risk for the death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. The insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of the death or bodily injuries to any person including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative, carried in the vehicle or damage to any property or a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Thus it is clear that the liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against the liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect of damages to property. Where, the owner of the vehicle has no liability to third party, the insurer has no liability also. In a case of death or bodily injury of the owner, the owner-insured has no liability to pay anybody, therefore, there is no question to indemnify to insured by the insurer. 11- In the instant case though the vehicle in question was comprehensively insured but no premium was paid as per policy for the death of the owner of the vehicle, hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the death of the owner of the vehicle. The finding recorded by the learned tribunal on issue no.3 does not suffer from any infirmity. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition. 4 12- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 8-3-2006 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5