The main legal point established is that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the owner is held liable due to the driver's fault, and a comprehensive policy covers the risk of the pillion rider.

1. In these two appeals judgments and orders dated 22nd December, 2004 passed in Claim Petitions No. 66/1993, 19/1995 as also in Claim Petition No. 17/1993 have been challenged.

2. I have heard Shri D.N. Kukade, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri V.A. Kothale, learned counsel for respondents in FA No.530/2005 and respondent No.4 in FA No.532/2005 as also Shri A.G. Gharote, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 in FA No.532/2005

3. The only point that arises for my consideration is –

Whether in absence of any evidence about the fault in respect of occurrence of accident, any liability could be fastened on the appellant/insurer of the scooter bearing registration No.MH-27/9964 involved in the accident ?.

4. The accident in this case occurred in the night of 24/9/1992 when deceased Babarao Ambekar along with deceased Krishnarao Thakre was proceeding on said scooter on Amravati Chandur Railway Road. It was stated that the accident had occurred due to collision between the scooter and the unknown vehicle. Respondents No. 1 to 3 being the legal heirs of deceased Babarao filed Claim Petition Nos.66/93 and 19/95 claiming compensation from the Appellant or in the alternative from the widow of Krishnarao contending that he was at the relevant time driving the scooter and that he was at fault. On merits of the case, the Tribunal found that since the accident had taken place involving a motor vehicle and Babarao had died in the accident and the scooter was insured with the appellant, the dependents of Babarao were entitled to receive compensation from the insurance company and Shrimati Veena widow of deceased Krishnarao who was owner of the scooter jointly and severely by Judgment and order dated on 22nd December, 2004.

5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the liability under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a fault liability and, therefore, unless the owner is held liable to pay compensation, the Insurance Company cannot be made to pay the compensation. He submits that the only liability the Insurance Company in such a case would have, it would be third party in view of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He placed his reliance upon Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd & anr reported in 2004 (8) SCALE 229; Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd v. Rajni Devi and ors reported in I (2009) ACC 297 (SC); Minu B. Mehta & anr v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and anr reported in (1997) 2 SCC 441; Deepal Girishbhai Soni and ors v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd Baroda reported in I (2004) ACC 728 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd v. Premlata Shukla and ors reported in 2007 (7) SCALE 725.

6. Shri Kothale, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 FA No. 530/2015 and shri Gharote learned counsel for respondent No.4 in FA No. 532/2005 support the impugned judgment and order. FA/530/2005 :

7. Out of the above referred, the case of Rajni Devi and others is in respect of the maintainability of a Claim Petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the ratio of that case would be of no assistance to us in the present case wherein claim petition was lodged under Section 166 of the Act. As regards the other judgments, the principle of law that can be culled out is that the claim petition filed under section 166 is based upon a fault liability and the insurer is held liable to pay the compensation in a case where owner of the vehicle is vicariously held to pay the compensation on account of rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle and that section 147 of the Act mandatorily requires the insurance company to only cover the risk of the third party and not the risk for the death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. Thus, these principles would indicate that where the insured i.e. owner of the vehicle has no liability towards compensation, the insurance company is also not liable to pay the compensation. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the fact that the policy was comprehensi