( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the judgment of the first additional district judge in m. v. c. No. 5237 of 2000. The facts in brief are as under: the respondent No. 1 insured obtained an insurance policy in respect of his car bearing No. Ka 33-m 4578. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition in m. v. c. No. 525 of 1997 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 9. 8. 1997 involving his own car. The said matter was contested. Learned tribunal allowed the claim petition and directed the driver and the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,49,000 jointly and severally to the claimant/petitioner and an interest of 6 per cent is also granted. This judgment is challenged in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE only contention urged by the counsel for the insurance company is that a legal error has been committed by the tribunal in granting compensation to the owner on account of the negligence of his driver. According to him, the policy does not cover a case like this. The policy covers only third parties risk and not the insured. The insured cannot be put on par with the third party. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that a careful reading of the policy would show that the insured is also covered under the policy.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order the tribunal has noticed that the owner of the vehicle is not debarred from travelling in his own car. If some unfortunate event happens the owner cannot be denied the compensation. In this view of the matter, the tribunal has fastened the liability on the insurance company. To understand the policy one has to refer to the very policy itself. The said policy provides for certain terms, exceptions and conditions. Section i deals with loss or damage. Section ii deals with liability to third parties. General exceptions and bonus malus clause is also provided. The endorsements in imt 5 deal with accidents to unnamed passengers other than the insured and his paid driver or cleaner. Clause 1 of Section ii no doubt deals with death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the motor car. It is the argument of the respondent that the owner is also an occupant of the motor car and, therefore, he is entitled for compensation. The said argument though at the first blush is very attractive but on deeper consideration it cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Section ii deals with liability to third parties and third parties cannot be said to include the owner as well. The word 'occupant' is referable to the third party. Moreover, the endorsement imt 5 categorically states that in consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that the company undertakes to pay compensation on the scale provided below for bodily injury as hereinafter defined sustained by any passenger other than the insured and/or his paid driver, attendant or cleaner and/or a person in the employment of the insured coming within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Even otherwise, policy is between the insured and the insurance company, unless and otherwise a specific clause is provided for coverage of the insured also nothing can be read into a policy thereby widening the very conditions and applicability of the policy. Therefore, from the reading of the very policy it is clear to me that the insured owner cannot be said to be a person covered by this policy. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the finding of the learned judge is unsustainable.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties have referred to the various decisions in support of their arguments. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on a judgment in minu B. Mehta V. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, 1977 ACJ 118 (sc), wherein the Supreme Court has noticed the objects of Section 95 particularly with reference t