Respondents 1 to 3 herein, instituted in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short "tribunal") a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, (for short 'Act') on 6.11.2002 to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4th respondent herein was the 1st respondent and the appellant was the 2nd respondent, in the said claim petition. For the sake of convenience, parties would hereafter be referred to with reference to their ranks in the claim petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are: Petitioners are the widow and children of, one Chandrappa S/o. late. Dasegowda of Narayanaghattahalli village in Arsikere Taluk. Said Chandrappa, owned a Motor Vehicle, Maxicab bearing No.KA-18-3125. On 27.8.2002, Chandrappa while travelling in his said vehicle to go Tiptur, on account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, which resulted in an accident, sustained injuries. Injured Chandrappa was immediately shifted to a hospital for treatment. Two days later, he succumbed to the injuries. Wife and children of deceased, filed claim petition against the driver and insurer of the vehicle.

3. After service of notice, driver remained absent and was placed ex-parte by the Tribunal. Insurance Company filed its objections on 15.9.2003, denying the case of the petitioners. It stated that, deceased was owner of the vehicle; that it had issued an insurance policy to the R.C. holder – Chandrappa; that the policy does not cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle and hence, the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased, will not be entitled to claim from the Insurance Company. It was further stated, the insurance policy issued, excludes the risk of insured and hence the petition is not maintainable against it.

4. Based on the pleadings of parties, Tribunal framed issues on 29.9.2003. Petitioner-1 deposed as PW1. 11 documents produced were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. Respondents did not lead any evidence. Case was set down on 30.6.2006 for hearing of arguments. Petitioners filed IA-V under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the claim petition filed, to one under Section 163-A of the Act. By overruling the objections of Insurance Company, IA-V was allowed on the ground that, amendment sought, being only a change of provision of law, is formal in nature. On the same day, arguments on main petition was also heard by the learned member of the Tribunal. The petition was partly allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act, with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till payment. The reason assigned for awarding of compensation, reads as follows;

"Now I have to decide the quantum of the compensation. It is not in doubt that the owner of the vehicle is not made respondent in the case as the deceased himself was the owner. In view of the same question of awarding compensation either under Sec.166 or 163(A) of M.V. Act does not arise. It can never be argued that, owner of the vehicle who is a party to the contract is a third party to the insurance contract. In view of the same I have to examine award of compensation under Sec.140 of M.V.Act. The law makers have though it fit to introduce such a provision which speaks of no fault liability. The Court is prohibited from examining at whose fault the accident occurred. In view of the same, the statutory compensation as enshrined in the said provision of Sec.140 of M.V. Act need to be awarded, be it third party to the contract or party to the contract. As such I award compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Sec.140 of M.V. Act to the petitioners.

(underlining is by me)

5. Aggrieved, the appellant – Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Respondents despite service of notice, have remained un-represented. I have perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that:

i) In view of the provisions in S.147 of the Act, the insurer is not required to cover the risk of insured and in fact has also not cove