FAO No.4775/2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4775/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2011. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. ....................Appellant v. Narender Singh .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal,Advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company. Jaswant Singh.J. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal against the award dated 25.5.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short the Tribunal) whereby the respondent owner-cum driver of the insured vehicle was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act), on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 24.12.2005 at about 11.15 pm while going from Bhiwani to Loharu. The ill fated vehicle, a Ford Endeavour bearing Registration No.HR-16-D-9313, was owned and driven by the respondent and insured by appellant- FAO No.4775/2011(O&M) 2 Insurance Company. At that time two other persons namely Manoj Kumar and Vinod Kumar were also travelling in the said vehicle who also sustained injuries in the said accident. The cause of the accident was breaking down of right ti-rod as a result of which the vehicle became unbalanced and turned turtle resulting in multiple and grievous injuries to the occupants of the vehicle. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company is that the award qua the respondent/insured is liable to be set aside as claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable only by a third party and the owner or driver cannot be said to be a third party and the Personal Accident Cover taken by the owner would entitle him to raise a claim before the Consumer Forum and not before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, I find no merit in the aforesaid contention. It is not in dispute that the respondent/insured had taken a Personal Accident cover at an extra premium of Rs.100/- and the capital sum insured under that head for owner-driver was Rs.2,00,000/- and he had suffered injuries on account of the accident of the insured vehicle. The similar argument that in case the owner-cum-driver of the insured vehicle is covered by a Personal accident cover and thus it being a contractual liability between the insurer and insured for which the appropriate Forum would be Consumer Disputes Grievances FAO No.4775/2011(O&M) 3 Redressal Forum was repelled by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Hiraundi Devi Mahilange and others, 2009 ACJ 493. In the cited case after relying upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,2005 ACJ 1(SC) it was held that where a policy of insurance covers personal accident risk cover like the present one, then keeping in view the wordings used in Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the MACT would not cease to have jurisdiction to entertain an application for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 08.09.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge