^!1.:^ •A)E. HIGH eOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J W.P.(C).No. 5107 of2006 Petitioner Respondents Bajaj Allianz General Irisurance Company Ltd., Shiy Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil & Dist : Raipur (C.G.) Local Address : Near Bajpai Towers, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspyr, Dist: Bilaspur Versus 1. Smt. Hiraundi Devi Mahilange, Aged abput 28 years,Wd/o Late Shri Balram Mahilange. 2. Amit Kumar, Aged about 8 years, S/o Late Balram Mahilange. 3. Ku. Nelia, Aged about 6 years, D/o Late Shri Balram Mahilange; 4, Sumit Kumar, Aged about 3 years, S/o Late Balram Mahilange. Respohdent No.2 to 4 Minor represented through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent N6.1 Smt. Hiraundi Devi Mahilange, Caste-Satnami, R/o Mulmula, Present Address : Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Tehsil & Dist : Bilaspui^ (G.G). WRITPETITIQNU/A2270FTHECONSTITUTIONOFINDIA Present: Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, cQUnsel for the petitioner. Shri RavindraAgrawal.counselfortherespondents. ORDER (Passed on this __1^_ day 6f October, 2007) lnthiswritpetition,theordei-datedfl1;08.2Q06paSSedbyrgtt'MQtor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.TrC,) Bilaspyr(hereinafteFreferredtdaSthe 94( JO Zfrl. uo.ipss Jspunteqi S! jeuoffitSd 9L|t joi issunoo peujeei 'indfey t|6uis uiqoes UMS ^qpsciueApB}usujn6jB84ij,o ismqtuieiii sqi '9 •jaAUp/JSUMO 84VP ^SU lUSp]OOB|BUOSJ8d 9L|l pSJSAOOJSUO!t!}Sd ayi Aq psnssi Aoi|od 941 )B4} punojB aq} uo jsuoiiitad aq} Aq pasiej uoipafqo eq} p9pefaj 'ro'VW 34} '£93 33S (8) tOOZ '•'a'/»o"Bpue 'pn'oy aaue.insul eipui MQN •SA .fe/uei/o uo SOUBIIQJ Buioeid •s •4)B8p|B}U9p!ooe ue qiiMteiii pey 'aioiqsASLit^uiAupsiiqM 'OL|M J9UMO Sqt P S9A!)B)U8SOjdSJ |eB8| sq} o) yoiiesusdiuoo /ed p) siqeii lou SGM/(uedtuoo souejnsui sqi 'sjo^ajsLii pue 'SLUIBIO A)jed pJiyilsuieBe psjnsui 34} ^iuuispU! 0} A|UO SBM AuBdiuoo souejnsui siji ^o A}!|!qB!| sqt leij} uoitosfqo ue psiy jsuoitiied 94} '}U9ius)B(s USBUM si! u| •fr •pstU!e|OseM-/ooO'08'Ol.'sa ^o uoiiBSuadLuoo •paijnooo tueppoB OL|( Mdq o]. SB psuoiiyaui tQu seMt! 'uoiieoiidde pies 91)) u| 'iov S4110 v-691 uoipas jspun yoiieoiidde ue psiy pesesosp sqi ^o usjpiiqo JOUJLU ssjt)} pue MOpiM si<l •s •papiAojd OS|B SBM -/OOO'OO' l. 'sy io luapo sqi oiJ8Aup/j8UM09i|tpJ8AOo>|SjJtU9p!OOB|euosjsd')|suA|jed pjiqiBuusAoo sepissqjspunajsqMjsuoiiiisdsqi Aq penssi aouejnsui jo Aoiiod e jspun psjnsuiSBM qoiLiM 'spAo joioiu pies Bqt 6u!AUp aiiqM L|}BSp iBtuapiooe UB qijM )siu spAo JO}OLU jopus|dg jednsepuoi-) oja|-| 941 p JSUMO 's6uB|!4B|^ Luej|eg gooz'l.l.'ez uo }eqi SJB spej peindsipun ^sug -g •s6us||BL|o jspun si 'UMOppeujnlsBM (pv 341 se o) psjjejsj jsyeuiajeq) 8861. 'PV S8|0!4SA JO}0|/\| stji 10 (v) £91. uoiioeg jspun uoiieoiidde sqi .(Q /iiiiqBUiEiuieiu 0} 6uiie|8j uoipsfqo si)} AqsjaijM gooZP es-oN sseo SIUIEO ui (•ro'V'|/\| \Q\'. s^- Act, the insurance company is undera statutory liability only to indemnify the insured and not to cover the risk of the owner/driver of the vehicle. So far as the personal accident risk cover granted by the petitioner underthe policy of insurance is concerned, it was purely a contractual liability between the petitioner and the insured for which the appropriate forum is the Consumers Disputes Grievances Redressal Forum. 7. Reliance was placed on Or/enfa//nsurance Co. L(d. vs. Sunita Rathi & Ors., 1998 SAR (Civil) 69 for the proposition that liability of the insurer arises onlywhen liability of the insured has been upheld, for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. Reliance was further placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal & Ore.,AIR 2007 SC 1609, Dhanrajvs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, MR 2004 SC 4767, Saheblal Chandra and another vs. Bhudayal Chandra and another, 2007 L.T. (CG) 60, Beesa/iavs. United Indla Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 L.T. (CG) 116, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt Jhuma Saha and others, 2007 AIR SCW859 : 2007 SAR (Civil) 148and Sm(. Urmilla Bai & othersvs. Policy Issuing OfRce, Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a decision rendered in M.A.(C).No. 159 of 2007 on 13.02.2007. 8. On the other hand, Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Smfc Kunti Ahirwar and others vs. Ste(e of M.P. and others, 2007 (1) M.P.H.T. 390 (DB) wherein it was held thatwhere a policy of insurance covers the personal accident risk of the owner, an application by the owner of a vehicle or his legal representatives would lie before the M.A.C.T. for compensationsubject to [02^- ahy limit given in the policy. Reliance was also placed on Sm(. Sheela Bai and others vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 (2) NI.P.H.T. 52 (CG) and Dhanraj vs. New India Assurance Company limited and another, (2004) 8 SCC 553 wherein itwas held that in case of an owner driven vehicle a claim would lie before the M.A.C.T. bythe legal representatives of the owner only if a personal accident insurance eover is provided in the policy; 9. Having considered the rivalsubmissions, lam of the considered opinion that the question involved in this petition is squarely covered by thedecision of theApexCourtin Dhanraj (supra). In paragraphsS, 9 and 10, theApex Court observed as under: "8. Thus, an insurancepolicycoverstheliabilityincurred by theinsurer in respectpfdeath ofor'bodily injuryto any person (including anoWnerofthegoodsorhisauthorizedrepresehtative) carried in the vehicle 6r damage tp any preperty of a third party caused by or arising put of the use of the vehicle. Seetion 147 does not require an msuranoe Wmpany to assume risk fbr death orBodily injury'totheoWnerofthevehicle. 9. \n Vne case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. \t. Sunita Rathi [(1998) 1SCC 365 :-1998ACJ121]\thasbeenhe\aVt}atVhe liability of an insurance company is onty fcr the purpose of indemnifying the insured againsf liabilities iricurred tpwards a third person or in respect of damages t6 property. Thus, where the insured j.e. an owner ofthe vehide Has no liability to a third party the insuraneecompany has noliability also. 10. In this ease, it has not been showh that the policy covered any risk for injury to the pwner himself. We are unable to aecept the Gontention that the premium of Rs.4989 paid under the heading "Own damage', is for covering liability towards persohal injury. Underthe heading "Own damage°, thewords "premium on vehicle and non-electrical aceessories" appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damag& to the vehiele and not for injury t6 the person of the owner.An owner of a vehicle can dnlv claim Drovided a personal accident insurance has been takeri out (emphasis supplied by me). In this case there is no such insurance." Vo^ 10. The decisionof the Apex Court in the case ofDhanraj (supra) was followed by a Division Bench pf this High Court inSmt. Sheela Baiand othere (supra) wherein it was held that the liability of the insurance \. company is onlyto indemnify the owner of the vehicle; therefore, in absenceof insyrance to_cover Rersonal [niyries ofIhe vehicle of the owner (emphasis supplied by me), pr for the death of owner as a result of accident out of theuse of motorvehicle , his legal representatives are not entitledfor compensation. 11. In Smt. Kunti Ahirwar and others vs. State of M.P. and others (supra), a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, considering an exactly similarsituation held as under: "......,.... There is no prohibition that the insurer cannot issuea policy infavour of the insured. In thecaseofDhanra/ (supra), Weir Lordships in no uncertajn terms have held that the owner of a vehicle can only claim provided personal aceident, insurance has been taken. Onoe the insurance RoliGyaprivitycontract.ooyerstheownerfQrhisown risk, it is not against the statute; It is a statutdry contract within the ambitand sweep of the Act. The owner ean putforth a claim for his bodily injuries. If he can put forth his claim for bodily injuries, itisneedless to emphasisethe legal representatives, by a logical corollary, can put forth an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal inasmuch as the policy is issued under the Act. The Division Bench in the case of P.N.Vijaiwargiya (supra),* has also opined that a claim in respect of an accident involving death relating to insured is tenable before the Tribunal. Section 165(1) of the Act uses the word 'injury t6 a persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles'. Section 147 of the Aet covers statutory liability thoughit does not extend to theowner of a vehicle. But, a sighificant one,an owner of the vehjcle can put forth a claim in case it is speGifically covered by the policy. tn the ease at hand, it is patent, personal insurance polieywastaken bythe owner to cover his 'own risk. The liability is limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. We fail tQ fathom why the Accident Claims Tribunalcanhot entertain the same and legal representatives should be asked to approach any other legal forum. Thus, the issue of maintainability raised by Mr. Nair is not acceptable and we have no hesitation in repelling the same." '[New India Assurance Co. Ud. Vs. P.N.Vijaiwargiya and others, 1992 ACJ312(MP) . .. fo^ 12. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are eonstituted under SeGtion165 (1) of the act which reads as under: "165. Claims Trjbunals.- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Glajms Triburials (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notification forthe purpose ofadjudicating upon Glaims for compensation in respect of aGCidents involving the death 6f, or bbdilv iniurv to, persons arising out of the use pf motor vehicles. or damaaes to anv DroDertv of a third Dartv so arisina, orboth.(emphasissyppliedbyme) Explanation.- For the removal pf doybts, it is. hereby declared that the expression 'claims for compensation in respect of aGciaents irivolving the death of or bodily injury tp persons arisihg out of the use of motor yehicles" includes claims for compensatipn under sectipn 140 [and section 163A]. 13. It is pertirient to note tMatwhereas in Section 165 (1) the Act the words "damages to any property of a third party" have beenused, it has used the words "the death pf pr bodily injury to, persons" instead of "the death of or bpdily injury tp third party". The intention of the Legislature in omittingthewords''totliirdparty''andinsteaClusingthewords''topersons'' is clearlytoinclude within its ambita case where the insurancecompany has, while issuing the policy of insurance under section 147 of the Act, covered a contractual liability i.e. persbhal accident risk of the owner/driver. 14. Section 147(1) oftheAGt providesthe requirements ofpblicies and limits of liability and reads as under: "147. RequirementsofpQliciesandlimitsofliability.- (1) In order tocomplywith the requirementsofthisehapter,a policyofinsurancemustbeapblicywhich— (a) js issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; or : ! ; . ' -• : : ,' •- : ' (b) insuresthe person orclassesQfpersonSspecifieclin thepolicytptMeeXtentspecifiedinsub-seetiSn (2)- ^ 7 . (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of pr bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in fhe vehicle] or damage to any propgrty of a third party caused by a oi" arising out of the use 6f the vehicle in a publicplace; (ii) against the death pf or bbdily injury t6 any passenger of a public service yehicle caused by aor arising outofthe useofthe vehicle in a publie place: Provicted that a policy shall npt be required— (i) tQ cover liability in respect ofthe death.arising outof and in the course of his employmenf, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in thecourse of his employmentotherthan aliability arising underthe Workmen'S Compensation Act, 1923 (8of 1923) in respect ofthe death of, or bodily injuryto, any suchemployee- (a) engaged in ^rivihg the vehicle, or (b) if it is a publie service vehicle engaged as conductpF of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a gpods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) fo cover any contractual li.ability. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts,it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by pr to have arise out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place nofwithstanding that the perspn who is dead or injured 6r the property whieh is damaged was not in a pyblic place at tHe time of the accident; if the act or omission which led tothe accident occurred in a public plaee." Under the proviso tosub-clause (ii) ofsub-section (1)of Sectioh 147 ofthe Act, a policy of insurance need not statutorily cover any contraetu^l liability. However, where a policy of insurance issued undepSection 147 (1) of the Act does proyide personal aecident risk eoyer,9the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in suGh a ease does riot cease Whav^ w r:o& s '•1 ! . ^ : , " , - jurisdiction under Section 165 of the Act fo entertain an applicatipn for compensation undersection 163-AoftheAct. 15. In the light of the observations made above, the issue of maintainability raised by ShrSachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel forthe petitioner, falls tothe ground. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of meritis dismissed. Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Ayant V-