HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR M.A. No. 951/2005 APPELLANT National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS Vyas Narayan Dewangan and aar. Oider post for^>-4-2007 Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge ;—~-"~~"1 ^' ^ •^-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR APPELLANT Applicaiit Non-applicant no. 1. M.A.No. 951/2005 National insurance Company Ltd. through: its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Versus RE^PQNDE-NTS 1. Vyas Narayan Dewangan S/o. Ram Pyare Dewangan aged 35 years, R/o. VUL Araiig, P.S. Arang, Distt. Raipur (C<0.) at present ~ Imali Bhata, Maliasainuuid, Distt. Maliasami.md 2< Mohd. Iliyas Gori, S/o, Jalauddui aged 33 years, R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Arang, Distt. - RaipLir (C.G.) Shii Dasrath Gupta, Adv. for the appellant. Nonc appcars for thc rcspondcnts. JUD GM EN T Dlsirendra Mishra,_J. The appellant/Insurer has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 12th May, 2005 passed by leanied Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund m Claim Case No. 16/2005, whereby the leamed Tribunal has awarded a smii of Rs. 1,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application to the respondent No. 1. The appellant and respondent No. '2 have been held Uable to pay the above compensation jointly and severely^ 2. The short question involved for adjudication of this appeal is that whether an application under Section 166 of fhe Act at the instance of owner of the vehicle involved m the accident is maintainable* 3. Leamed counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court m m6 matters of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Smt. Jhuma Saha suad others reported in 2007 Am SCW 8S9 aiid Dhanraj -v- New India Assur^ice Co. Ltd. and another reported in 2005(11 T.A.C. 1 (S.C.I, submitted tliat undisputedly if the owner of fhe vehicle .himself -^ getting injured due to his own negligence, the insiirer cannot be made liable for payment of compensation. It is further contended that there is no evidence available on record fhat the appellant cover any risk of the injiiry to the owner himself and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Conipany could not be saddled with the UabiMty of payment ofconipensation. 4. I have heard leai'ned counsel for the appellant. I have perused the impugned award as also oral and documentaiy evidence avallable on record. 5. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), the Hon7ble Supreme Court tn para 11 has held thus:- WThe liability of the insurer-compmiy is to the extent of indcmniilcation of thc insurcd against thc rcspondcnt or an iniured person, a fhu'd person or in respect of daaiages of propert'y. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened vvith any liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indeninify7 insured, therefore, does not arise.?? 6. In the matter of Dhanrai (Supra) Honrble Supreme Court has laid down the law in para 6 as under:- "Thus, an insui-ance polic\r covers the Uability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury' to any person (includmg an owner of the goods or his authonized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an Insurance Cempany to assume risk for death or bodily inJLiry to the oT»vnerofthe vehicle." 7. In view of the above binding judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claiins 'T'ribunal was not justified ui fastenulg the UabiUty of payment of compensation upon the appellant-Insm'ance Company to the owner. On me basis of the aforesaid discussion, fhe instant appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed and the appellant is absolved from the UabUity of satisfying fhe impugned award. Sd/- 1 DHIBENDRA MISHRA Judge ^ -4-2007