1 FA.488.99 Appellant-owner-driver ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 488 OF 1999 Dattu Sitaram Kshirsagar. ... Appellant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. ... Respondent ----- Mr. M.R.Deshpande i/b Mr. S.B.Kumbhar for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08 th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: . The Appellant – original claimant in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has preferred this Appeal. 2 The Appellant himself is the owner of a three wheeler goods tempo. On 4 th June, 1992 at about 04:30 am, when the Appellant was 2 FA.488.99 Appellant-owner-driver driving the tempo between Mahatma Phule Chowk to Mohmad Ali Chowk at Kalyan, the accident occurred. The tempo dashed against the cover of manhole which was fixed above the road level. As a result, the tempo fell on one side, which resulted into fracture of right leg and other injuries to the Appellant. The tempo was insured with the Respondent. A claim of Rs.1,00,000/- has been made in the claim petition. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the liability of the Appellant was covered under the policy of the insurance and under the terms and conditions of the said policy, the Respondent was liable to pay the compensation to the Appellant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the Appellant and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation. He submitted that the Appellant has suffered a permanent disability and the disability certificate has been duly proved. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Under the said Act, claim petitions are maintainable under Section 140, Section 3 FA.488.99 Appellant-owner-driver 163-A and Section 166. In claim petitions under Section 140 and Section 163-A of the said Act, it is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident who is liable to pay compensation and in view of Section 149 (1) of the said Act, the Insurer is bound to honour the award, which is made against the Insured/ owner. In the present case, the Appellant himself is the owner and therefore, under both the provisions, his claim petition was not tenable. 5 The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the said Act is essentially an action under the law of torts. Unless negligence on the part of the driver and/or the owner of a motor vehicle is proved, the Tribunal does not get the jurisdiction to grant the compensation. Thus, the Tribunal can grant compensation against a tort-feasor. In the present case, the Appellant himself is the owner and driver of the vehicle who suffered accident. 6 Therefore, suffice it to say that the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal established under the said Act was not maintainable and therefore, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal 4 FA.488.99 Appellant-owner-driver has rightly rejected the said claim petition. 7 Hence, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]