IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1743 of 2000 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddapah ..... APPELLANT/R-2 AND Shaik Mastani and five others ..... RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1743 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the Award dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Kadapa in O.P.No.791 of 1998. 2. The appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited, Kadapa is the second respondent before the Tribunal below. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Shaik Alla Bakash, who died in the motor vehicle accident. 3. Challenge by the Insurance Company to the award is whether the Tribunal was correct in fastening the liability on it in respect of the accident occurred on 17-09-1994 wherein the Jeep bearing No.ADM-2200 was involved. 4. It has been contended by the appellant insurance company that since the owner of the jeep Shaik Alla Bakash was driving the same at the relevant point of time and the policy does not cover the risk of the owner, even when he drives the vehicle, it is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. – insurance company. The respondents though served with notices, none appeared nor there was any representation on their behalf. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though in fact, the deceased Shaik Alla Bakash was the owner of the Jeep bearing No.ADM-2200, the claimants purposefully mentioned the owner’s name as Shaik Kamal Basha with a view to see that the liability is fastened on the insurance company. He invited the attention of this Court to the averments of the claim petition and the deposition of PW-1, who is the son of the deceased Shaik Alla Bakash. 7. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioners 1 to 3 are the minor children of the deceased Shaik Alla Bakash, petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents-in-law and the deceased, while driving the Jeep bearing No.ADM-2200 lost control over the vehicle and dashed against a tree, which ultimately resulted in the accident in which Shaik Alla Bakash died. 8. The first petitioner, who was examined as PW-1 before the Tribunal also stated that the Jeep belongs to his father and it was involved in the accident while his father was driving the vehicle and when his father lost control over the same, it dashed against a tree. 9. Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased Shaik Alla Bakash, the owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time and the claim petition was filed by his legal representatives on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.09.1994, wherein the Jeep bearing No.ADM-2200 belonging to him was involved. Further perusal of Ex.B-1 policy also indicates that though the risk of driver and passengers was covered under the policy, there was no coverage for the owner of the vehicle, even if he drives the vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants only if the deceased is considered to be a third party, his risk is specifically covered under the policy. 10. In the instant case, the deceased who himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time, cannot be said to be a third party within the meaning of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ex.B-1 policy only covers his risk, which is apparent from the contents of the policy. The learned trial Court, therefore, erroneously held that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the said finding is liable to be set aside. 11. Consequently, finding of the Tribunal below that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants is set aside holding that it is not liable to pay compensation. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 28th August, 2009 pn/kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1743 of 2000 28th August, 2009