ORDER :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the Decree and Order dated 10.03.2005 passed in MVOP No. 1007 of 2001 by the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act"), claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the accident occurred on 08.10.2000 while he was driving the auto bearing No. AP 22T 9104 from Venkateswara Hall to Srinivasapuram and when the auto came near electrical sub-station, Meetaqmeedipalli, two buffaloes suddenly fighting with each other on the' road and the petitioner has taken the auto to the extreme left side of road and he was unable to control it, then the auto fell down and turned turtle. The petitioner sustained fractures to his ribs, and he was taken to Government Hospital for treatment. He was treated in the hospital till 19.10.2001. The petitioner is not able to attend to his duties as usual and he was unable to lift weights. He suffered permanent disability on account of the fracture of his ribs in the accident.

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle remained had ex-parte.

5. The second respondent has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the petition and put the petitioner to the strict proof of the same and contended that the claim is highly excessive.

6. On consideration of the evidence, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. The first respondent had paid the insurance for coverage of the risk of the driver. Therefore, the tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for compensation against the insurance company, and awarded compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal.

8. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant-insurance company and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the driver of the auto is not entitled to claim compensation as the accident occurred due to his own negligence. He further submits that in the case of own negligence, the petitioner has no remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, except to approach the Workmen Compensation Tribunal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the driver of the auto is the third party to the insurance policy as contemplated under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The third party is entitled for compensation as this accident arose out of use of the motor vehicle in a public place.

11. At the outset, the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/,-.

12. Section 165 of the Act makes it clear that the claims tribunal is established for adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to the persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

13. In the instant case, the petitioner while driving the auto has sustained bodily injuries in the accident. No doubt, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, who is no other than the claimant in this case.

14. Section 147 of the Act deals with requirement of policies and limits of liability. The proviso says that the policy shall not be required if a person is engaged in driving the vehicle is involved in the accident and received bodily injuries, provided, that a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability