Case: Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

On 26th August 2000, the Appellant along with certain other person was travelling in his own Jeep. Around 6.30 A.M. the Jeep met with an accident. In the accident, the Appellant as well as the other passengers received injuries. A number of Claim Petitions came to be filed. The Appellant also filed a Claim Petition.  5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) held the Driver of the Jeep responsible for the accident. In all the Claim Petition filed by the other passengers MACT directed that the Appellant (as the owner) as well as the Driver and Insurance Company were liable to pay compensation. In these Appeals, we are not concerned with those Petitions and the Orders thereon.  6. In the Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the driver and the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the Petitioner. The Insurance Company filed an Appeal. That Appeal has been allowed by the impugned Judgment. It has been held that as the Petitioner was the owner of the vehicle the Insurance Company is not liable to pay him any compensation.

Reasoning: In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sunita Rathi & Ors. [1998 ACJ 121 ] it has been held that the liability of an Insurance Company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect of damages to property. Thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the Insurance Company has no liability also10. In this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. We are unable to accept the contention that the premium of Rs.4,989/- paid under the heading Own damage is for covering liability towards personal injury. Under the heading Own damage, the words premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case, there is no such insurance11. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the Judgment of the High Court. We see no reason to interfere.