CRP 216/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UB SAHA The instant revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 08.04.2011 passed by the learned Member, Mo tor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, ’Tribunal’) Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpu r in MAC case No. 12 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal directed the pe titioner-Insurance Co. for making payment of the contractual amount to the claim ant at the earliest along with interest @ 9% per month from the date of filing o f the case till payment. Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Insurance Co. and Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:- That the respondents as claimants had instituted a Motor Acciden t Claim Case No. 31/2009 before the learned Tribunal, Lakhimpur seeking compensa tion on account of the death of Lt. Ajit Saikia which allegedly occurred in a mo tor accident on 27.12.2008 while he was driving the vehicle owned by him, which on the relevant date stood insured with the present petitioner-Insurance Co. The Insurance Co. filed a written statement challenging the claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal. Based on the pleadings of the parties concerned the learned Trib unal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether there is cause of action for the claim? (ii) Whether the claim is maintainable? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for the death of her so n? (iv) What other relief/relieves the parties are entitled to? While adjudicating the issues by the Tribunal the petitioner raised the question of maintainability of the claim petition stating inter alia, that the deceased was himself the insured under the policy and hence not a third party and theref ore there was no cause of action for the claimant against the Insurance Co. and deceased being the owner of the vehicle cannot be treated to be a third party wi thin the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the Tribunal constituted for deciding the third party claim has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim since the Act covers only the risks of the third party. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties held that the deceased son of the claimant was not only the owner but also the driver, thus the claim of the clai mant-mother is a justified one and ultimately passed the impugned judgment, as s tated supra. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Co. filed the instant revision petition. Mr. Dutta while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would refer to th e provisions of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that the Mot or Accident Claims Tribunal is constituted for deciding the claim for compensati on in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Thus a claims tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any claim for compensation relating to first party risk under the provisions of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act and on that sole ground the impugned judgm ent should be set aside. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jahar Deb V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2006 (4) GLT 292 as well as the decision in New India Assurance Co. L td. V. Imkong Toshi jamir @ Toshi Jamir, 2006 (3) GLT 379. He further submits that even if for argument sake it is considered that the clai mant is entitled to the risk coverage relating to first party that can be claime d only with the Insurance Co. but not before the Tribunal and if the Insurance C o. denied to make any payment then the claimant can approach the appropriate for um but not by way of claim petition before the Tribunal. Mr. Das while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the de ceased son of the claimant was not only an insured as a owner but also a driver. A owner may not come within the purview of third party as referred in Section 1 65 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but obviously a owner cum driver comes within the purview of third party and thus the learned Tribunal did not commit any wrong. As Mr. Dutta raised the question of jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal referri ng Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would be proper for this Court to r eproduce section 165 of the said Act. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein under. 165. Claims Tribunals-(1) A State government may, by notification in the Offici al Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudication upon claims for compensatio n in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons a rising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third p arty so arising, or both. In Jahar Deb (supra) this Court considered the provisions of Section 165 of Moto r Vehicles Act and held that a bare reading of the provisions contained in Sub-S ection (1) of Section 165 of the MV Act makes it clear that a Tribunal, constitu ted under Section 165, can adjudicate upon the damage caused to the property of a third party. Section 165 does not empower such a Tribunal to adjudicate upon a ny claim for damage to the property of the insured or of the 1st party. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) a Division Bench of this Court while ans wering the question, inter alia, whether an insurer can be made liable to pay co mpensation for the injuries sustained by the owner of a vehicle, particularly, w hen the owner himself was driving the vehicle stated that the answer to this que stion is no longer res integra that the liability of an insurer is only to indem nify the insured against the liabilities, which the insured may incur towards a third person or in respect of damage to property. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd . (supra) the Division Bench also considered the decision of the Apex Court in D hanraj V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 553 wherein the Ap ex Court has observed and held as follows:- 8. Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in re spect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the good s or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any prop erty of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Sectio n 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily i njury to the owner of the vehicle. 9. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi it has been held that the liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifyi ng the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third person or in respect of damages to property. Thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle ha s no liability to a third party the insurance company has no liability also. In view of the above position, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal com mitted an error in passing the impugned judgment directing the petitioner-Insura nce Co. to make payment of the contractual amount to the claimant at the earlies t along with interest @ 9% per month from the date of filing of the case till pa yment. It is settled by this time that when a court or tribunal is established for a pa rticular purpose that has to act only for the said purpose and not for any other purpose. Now question remains that when as per the terms of the policy an insurer is liable to pay the 1st party risk coverage to the insured as mentioned in the policy, if the deceased is the owner cum driver then in that case how the legal heirs of the insured will get the benefit of the policy. According to this Court, the legal heirs of the deceased insured has the right t o claim the insurance coverage as mentioned in the policy to the Insurance Co-pe titioner and the Insurance Co. is also liable to discharge its duties as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As the same is not the issue before this Co urt, this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the claim of the respond ent-claimant before the petitioner-Insurance Co. As the learned Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction there is no other alternat ive before this Court except to set aside the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2011 . Accordingly, the same is set aside and in the result the instant revision peti tion is allowed. However, setting aside of the impugned judgment would not debar the claimant-res pondents to claim the risk coverage for death of deceased insured owner and driv er of the offending vehicle before the petitioner-Insurance Co.