^ HI©HCOURT OF CHHATHS^RH ^T BILASPUR M. A. N0. 57 OF 2006 APPELLANT Defendant The Oriental Company Ltd. Insurance Versus RESPONOENT Claimont Shrj Kuldeep Singh Chawla POST FOR JUD@MENT ON //. 05.2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge lt HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS^.RH AT BIL^SPUR M. A. N0. 57 OF 2006 APPELLANT Defendant Versus RESPONDENT Claimcint The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., "riirough its Divisional Mcyiager, DivJsional Office No.EE. Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Rajpur, Tahsil &. District-Raipur (C.6.) Shri Kuldeep Singh Chawia, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri T.S. Chawla, R/o Bus Stcsnd Abh<mpur, Post and Police StaTion-^bhanpur, District- Raipur (C.6.) Present: Mr- Scinkalp Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant, None for the respondent. JUD@MENT (Delivered on // /05/2007) Dhirendra Mtshra. J 1) The oppellant-Insurer has preferred 1+iis appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award dated 9th March, 2006 passed by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No.24/05 whereby learned claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs,38,000/~ to the cfaimGnt/r^spondent towards 1+ie injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicfe accident dated 28.8.2002 involving Motor Car No. €.^.-04-0860,owned by the him and driven by his son namely Navneet Singh rashly and negligently. 2) The only point involved for adjudication of this appeal is - whether a petition under Section 163(A) of the Act is maintainabje at l4ie instance of owner/insured? 3) Mr. Sankalp Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submitt-ed that the respondent/claimant himself was the owner of offending ^ vehicle, his son was driving the vehicle at -i+ie relevant time rashly and negligentty, as a result of which accident occurred in which the respondent/owner sustained injuries. The vehicle was insured with the appeJlant/insurer vide policy of Ex.b/1 and no premium was obtained for covering risk of the owner. 4) Learned counsel for the Gppellant submits that admitt-edly -riie application has been preferred by the owner/insured of the vehicle, 1+ierefore, as per Section 147 (b) of the Act no such liability can be fastened upon the insurer for indemnifying the owner insured himself, os he cannot be termed as 3 party because the jurisdiction of 1+ie tribunal was confined to a 3 party claim only. Reliance is placed in the matter of Oriental Insurance Comporsy Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jhuma Saha & ors reported in AIR 2007 SC 1054 <& judgment of Division Bench of this Court in M.A.[c] No. 159/2007 between Smt. Urmila Bai and others Vs. Policy Issuing Offic®. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and perused the material available on record, 6) It is admitted position tiiat the vehicle involved in question was insured by the appellant for 3 party risk. 7) In the inatter of Smt. Jhuma Saha (supra) it has been held that where insured owner of motor vehicle himself got injured due to his own negligent drivin9, insurer is not liable to pay compensation particularly when no additionaj premium has been paid jn respect of entire risk of dea1+i or bodily injury of owner of vehicle, In Para 13 of this judgment it has been held that; "13. TTie additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, Section 147 (b) of the AAotor Vehicles Act which in no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only would be attracted in the presentcase." ^ •^-:-::/1;1r^ Khan/- 8) Further in the matt-er of Smt. Urmila Bai (supra) the Division Bench of this Court placing reliance upon the judgment of Dhonraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 has held that since the deceased was the owner of vehicle, so far as third part/ risk is concerned, his legal representatives are not entitled to claim compensation in accordance with -tiie provisions of the Act. 1988. 9) In view of 1+ie aforesaid discussion the claim petition at the instance of the owner, who himself was traveling in the vehicle at 1+ie relevant time dnd met with an accident, against the insurer was not majntainable, particularly, when the polscy did not cover his personat injuries for unlimited extent 10) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award fastening the liabjlity on 1+ie appelfant insurance company is hereby set aside and it js held that application of the respondent herein, who hjmself was the owner and insured, was not maintainable under the Act Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge