IMPORTANT POINT: ownwer of an insurance company cannot be the receiver of the compensation, recipient has to be a third party

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 24.9.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha District at Modasa below Exh.47 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1705 of 2013 whereby learned Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.3,35,600/- with interest and cost proportionately in favour of the respondent herein – original claimant.

2. The appellant – insurance company has preferred the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the award passed by learned Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of law, the claimant is indisputably not the third party and he cannot maintain the claim petition before the learned Tribunal under the provisions contained under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (“the Act” for short). It is further contended that learned Tribunal fallen in error in holding that as the insurance company has recovered Rs.50/- towards coverage of personal accident and, therefore, the insurance company is bound to compensate the insured / owner as such.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are narrated as under.

3.1 That the respondent – original claimant who is the owner of motor cycle No.GJ 9 AG 7615 himself was proceeding upon his motor cycle on 6.12.2010 at about 6.00 hours in the morning from Modasa to Himatnagar and while the motor cycle was proceeding within vicinity of Lalpura Kampa Na Patiya, at that time, one truck was coming from opposite direction in full light, due to dazzling effect, he fell down and sustained injuries and ultimately, he received permanent disability which led to filing of the claim petition against the appellant – insurance company making the claim that the insurance company has recovered additional amount of premium of Rs.50/- and, therefore, the insurance company should compensate for the injuries sustained by him.

3.2 Learned Tribunal, after conclusion of trial and hearing, awarded compensation of Rs.3,35,600/- and along with interest at the rate of 8% and cost proportionately.

4. This Court has heard Mr.Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company and Mr.Abhishek Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent – original claimant.

5. Mr.Raval, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has submitted that since the claimant himself is registered owner of the vehicle being Morot Cycle No.GJ 9 AG 7615 which is involved in the accident in question and while the accident occurred, he himself was driving. In his submission, the claimant stands as driver, owner, tortfeasor, insured and the claimant also who claimed the compensation against his own insurer for the injuries and damages sustained by him by way of invoking the provisions of Chapter XI of the Act before learned Tribunal.

5.1 Mr.Raval, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in view of several decisions, the issue involved in the present appeal has been discussed and decided and hence, this issue remains no longer res integra. In support of his submissions, Mr.Raval has placed reliance on the following decisions. 5.2 In 1986 GLH 573 (United India Ins. Company Ltd Vs Jagatsinh Valsinh and others, this Court has held as under.

“The claimant is held to be tort feasor. It is beyond comprehension as to how a tort-feaser can be awarded compensation for the tortious act committed by him. If the claimant sustained injuries and suffered disablement as a result of such injuries he has to blame himself for it was his own negligence which caused these injuries. If the claimant was negligent he cannot come forward and say “pay me compensation for my own negligence”. The Tribunal has not examined whether the position of a tort- feaser who is’ employee, would be different from other tort-feasers. (Para 7)”

“The owner has not been found to be liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Thus what is startling is that without holding the owner liable, the insurance company is made liable to pay compensation t