The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not empowered to entertain 'Own Damage Claims' under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. 'Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can entertain under Section 166 of the said Act an 'Own Damage Claim' is the question for my consideration in the present appeal.

3. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No.269/1993 decided on 16th February, 2002, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aurangabad has awarded the compensation by way of damages to the tune of Rs.2,74,000/- to the owner of the vehicle towards loss caused to the jeep owned by him from the Insurance Company, with which, the said jeep was insured. The present appellant is the said Insurance Company and present respondent no.1 had filed the aforesaid claim petition.

4. Shri Soman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company has challenged the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that, the tribunal was not having any jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim petition so filed by respondent no.1. As against it, Shri R.R. Mantri the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has supported the impugned Judgment and award.

5. In its written statement, the appellant – Insurance Company had raised a specific plea that, own damage claim was not liable to be entertained by the Tribunal against it. I find it appropriate to reproduce herein below para 2 of the said written statement, which reads thus:

"2. The jeep in question is insured with this respondent under comprehensive cover for which an Own Damage Claim under the contractual liability was filed with the Company which is repudiated by this respondent as the jeep was carrying passengers on hire & reward at the material time. Against this cause of action the respondent says that the remedy would be to file a Civil Suit against this respondent. The claim is not maintainable before this Tribunal since there is no alleged cause of action against this Respondent. Naturally speaking the liability of the claimant himself can be indemnified by this Resp. when negligence of the Insured (Claimant himself) is proved before this Court. Since the claimant himself can not be a resp. in the same proceedings this petition deserves to be dismissed against this Resp., who is wrongly joined in the array of respondents."

6. Based on the plea so raised by the appellant – Insurance Company a specific issue was framed 'whether the claim petition is maintainable'. The tribunal has answered the said issue in affirmative.

7. From the material on record, it is evident that, the issue so framed by the learned Tribunal was not properly framed. The claim petition was filed not only against the appellant – Insurance Company, but also against the driver, owner and insurer of the truck, the another vehicle involved in the alleged accident. The plea of maintainability was raised by the appellant – Insurance Company alone. The issue as about the maintainability of the petition must have been, therefore specifically framed restricted to the maintainability of the petition against the appellant – Insurance Company. The discussion made by the tribunal while deciding the aforesaid issue is, however, only in respect of the appellant – Insurance Company.

8. Reasoning given by the learned Tribunal while deciding the aforesaid issue in affirmative, is wholly unacceptable. As has been observed by the Tribunal, because of the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 177/2000 with First Appeal No.178/2000 decided on 09.07.2001, the defence raised by the appellant – Insurance Company was liable to be turned down and is accordingly turned down by the Tribunal.

9. I have carefully perused the Judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.177/2000 with First Appeal No.178/2000. The aforesaid appeals were filed by respondent no.1 against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.218/1993 and 283/1993. The said claim petitions were allowed only against the owner of the j