( 1 ) THE appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act of 1988') as he is aggrieved by the award dated 5-11-1999 passed by the IIIrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case no. 16/95 whereby compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 towards damages caused to his vehicle in the motor vehicle accident was awarded.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 is the owner of matador 407 bearing registration No. M. P. 24-C/1592 which was insured with the appellant. On 18-11-1994 when the insurance policy of the said vehicle was in force, the vehicle was involved in an accident and was severely damaged. An offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal code was registered against respondent No. 2. The claimant/respondent No. 1 preferred an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation for a sum of rs. 61,428/- for damages caused to his vehicle. The appellant denied the claim of the claimant and raised preliminary objection in his reply, that the application was not maintainable at the instance of the claimant who is the owner of the vehicle and the accident occurred when the same was being driven by the driver appointed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 and as such the application for compensation is not on behalf of the third party and therefore, the same is not maintainable and it should be summarily rejected.

( 3 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties framed the following issues; 1) Whether the accident occurred on 18-11-1994 at about 19. 30 hours near village-Phunda as the driver of the vehicle was trying to save the deceased Rampyare who was plying his bicycle under drunken state on the wrong side of the road and in the said accident the vehicle in question was damaged? 2) Whether the claimant/respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the damages caused to the vehicle from the appellant/insurance company and respondent No. 2 and if yes then to what extent? 3) Relief and cost?

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned award only on the sole ground that the claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the owner of the vehicle as the conjoint reading of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act of 1988 goes to show that the claim in respect of the damages to the owner/insured does not lie before the claims Tribunal. In support of his contention, he places his reliance in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. San tosh Kumar, reported in 2001 ACJ 449 : (2001 AIHC 1467 ).

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for claimant/respondent No. 1 submits that on the application for compensation on behalf of other claimants arising out of the same accident, award was passed by the claims Tribunal and the Insurance Company challenged the above award by way of appeal in the High Court and the same was rejected by the High Court and subsequent s. L. P. preferred by the Insurance Company was also rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme court. He further submits that no issue was framed by the Claims Tribunal regarding maintainability on the above ground and the appellant has not adduced any evidence in support of its contention and as such the evidence adduced by the claimant stands unrebutted. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned award passed by the learned claims Tribunal. It is further argued that the accident took place approximately nine years before and the appellant has deposited only rs. 10,000/- towards the amount of compensation which has been received by the claimant. He further submits that if the instant appeal is allowed on the technical grounds raised by the appellant, then the claimant shall be remediless to recover damages caused to his vehicle from the appellant after a lapse of nine years an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document