The heirs and legal representatives of the victim are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1 lakh in tune with the terms of the policy with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-application till the actual deposit of the amount before the Tribunal below.

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 13th April, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, First Court, Burdwan, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.47 of 2006 thereby disposing of the proceedings under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by awarding a sum of Rs.3,34,820/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the application till actual realization in favour of the claimants with a direction upon the Insurance Company to pay the said amount.

2. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. There is no dispute as regards the death of the victim in the accident in which the victim himself was the owner of the one of the vehicles involved in the accident and the said vehicle was insured by the appellant. It appears that the victim while proceeding on his own motorcycle was dashed by an unknown truck, as a result, he died. On that basis, a claim-application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed against the insurer of the own vehicle of the victim.

3. A specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the claim-application under Section 163A of the Act was not maintainable at the instance of the heirs of the owner where the owner himself has died because the owner cannot be said to be a third party to the contract of Insurance. The learned Tribunal below overruled such defence and consequently, passed an award.

4. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. Mr. Bose, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently contended before us that the learned Tribunal below erred in law in allowing the application under Section 163A of the Act at the instance of the heirs of the owner of the vehicle involved where the owner and the insurer of the other vehicle involved has not been made parties. According to Mr. Bose, in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act, there is no scope of lodging a claim by either the owner of the vehicle or by his heirs, as a person cannot be both the plaintiff and the defendant in a particular litigation. In the case before us, we find that the insurance coverage was not only restricted to the third party’s benefit but additional premium was also taken by the Insurance Company for covering the accidental death or injury of the owner to the limited extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Mr. Bose, however, contends that his client is liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of the owner but such amount cannot be claimed by filing a claim-petition under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Bose contends that it was the duty of the heirs of the insurer to lodge claim direct before the Insurance Company and if the Insurance Company refused, in such a case, the heirs of the victim could either approach Civil Court or Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for its remedy. Mr. Bose, therefore, submits that the application under Section 163A of the Act was not maintainable at the instance of the heirs of the insured against the insurer. Mr. Bose further contends that as one is not entitled to maintain an application for damages against oneself, for the same reason, there is no scope of maintaining an application for compensation against one’s own insurer. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the award impugned and with liberty to the appellants to lodge claim direct before the Insurance Company or to approach Civil Court or Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

5. In support of such contention, Mr. Bose relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 WBLR (SC) 282 and Dhanraj vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553. Therefore, the first point that arises for determination in this a