The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident cannot be considered a third party within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company's liability arises only when the insured incurs liability for death, injury, or property damage to a third party.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order made by the Addl. M. A. C. T. , bhadravathi in M. V. C. No. 202 of 1996 whereby learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal has taken the view that since the appellant was himself the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, he was not entitled to claim any compensation as the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of his own driver. The appellant assails the correctness of that view and argues that even when he himself is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and even when the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of his own driver, he was entitled to maintain a claim as a third party. The controversy arises in the following circumstances: a private car bearing registration No. KA 14-M 749 owned by the appellant was on 7. 7. 1995, being driven by one Madhusudhan, a driver temporarily appointed by the appellant. Somewhere between Tumkur and Bangalore, the car dashed against a roadside tree resulting in grievous injuries to the occupants including the driver who later died in the hospital. Two claim petitions for payment of compensation were instituted; one of which was filed by the appellant owner of the vehicle. The insurance company resisted the claim made by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that he being the owner of the vehicle in question was not a third party within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and was not, therefore, entitled to claim any compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It was alleged that since the appellant had not taken a personal accident policy, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to him. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three material issues namely: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing the registration No. KA 14-M 749? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent? (3) Whether the respondent insurance company proves that the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation from it for the reasons stated in paras 1 and 6 (c) of the objection statement?

( 2 ) BY the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Tribunal held issue No. 1 in the affirmative and recorded a finding that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased, Madhusudhan. In so far as issue no. 2 was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant, who was the claimant in m. V. C. No. 202 of 1996, was not entitled to any compensation as he was not a third party within the meaning of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. The claim filed by him was accordingly dismissed and aggrieved whereof, the appellant has filed the present appeal as noticed earlier.

( 3 ) APPEARING for the appellant Mr. S. P. Shankar made a twofold submission. He urged that an insured owner who is not statutorily or contractually excluded from being treated as a third party could maintain a claim in that capacity. Alternatively, he submitted that the term 'any person' appearing in section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was wide enough to include within its meaning an insured who had sustained any injury on account of use of the motor vehicle owned or insured by him.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Mr. Rajagopalan argued that Chapter XI of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, made insurance of the motor vehicles compulsory only against third party risks. The owner of the vehicle who got the vehicle insured against such risks could not himself claim to be a third party, even if he was an occupant of the vehicle in question and had sustained injuries on account of its rash and negligent driving. It was indeed open to the insured to take a larger cover to include the risk to his life by paying the prescribed premium in whi