THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2234 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Challenging the order and decree, dated 28.03.2003, passed by the I Additional District Judge- cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in M.O.P.No.295 of 1998, awarding a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-, towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner therein, in a road accident that occurred on 01.06.1997, involving a maruti van bearing No.AP 35-A 2886, the New India Assurance Company Limited filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 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. He further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dudekula Salabee V. R.Siva Sankar Reddy and another[2], wherein it was observed that there must be a specific condition under policy covering a person or persons like the deceased in the present case, to fasten the liability on the insurer. 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? 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 sustained injuries. The claimant, who is the owner of the van, filed the said O.P. seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. From the two judgments cited supra, it is obvious that the question to be decided in the present appeal 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. 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. In the instant case, it is the owner of the vehicle who sustained injuries 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. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to be allowed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 05th August 2010 dr [1] 2007 (3) ALT 57 (SC) [2] 2008 (1) ALD 161