IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the specific terms of the insurance policy, and the Court emphasized the need to interpret insurance contracts strictly.

JUDGMENT :

VIMAL K. VYAS, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the findings fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation and also the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,00,188/- awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim, the United India Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘MV Act’).

2. Short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as follows:

2.1 That on 2.11.2001 at about 6:00 p.m. the claimant (respondent no. 2 herein) and one Rasiklal (respondent no. 1 herein) were going from Visnagar to Pilodara on a scooter bearing registration No. GJ-2P-9044 and that Rasiklal was driving the scooter and the claimant, who was also the owner of the scooter was a pillion rider. At that time, respondent no. 1 Rasiklal had applied a sudden brake to save a cow came on the road, due to which his scooter skidded and the claimant sustained serious injuries on his left hand. He was treated in the Jay Orthopedic Hospital, Mehsana, as an indoor patient.

2.2 The claimant filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, impleaded himself as one of the respondents and claimed that he suffered injuries by travelling on his own scooter, which was driven by respondent no. 1-Rasiklal. Therefore, he is entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company.

3. On issuance of the summons, the appellant-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.14, inter-alia, contended that the claimant, being the owner of the vehicle, is not entitled to get compensation as he is not the third party and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the claimant. In other words, on the principle that the Insurance Company is vicariously liable to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle only to third party and not to the owner himself, the Company questioned the maintainability of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act.

4. Upon evaluation of the pleading and the evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant has paid additional premium for personal accident, and as such, the risk of both, the owner and the driver is covered. However, the Tribunal did not consider the contention regarding maintainability of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the income of the claimant, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,188/- under the following heads:

6. Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant-Insurance Company has taken a specific contention in the written statement that the claimant, being the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, cannot take advantage of his own driver’s negligence. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in entertaining the claim petition preferred under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, as the claimant himself is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Mr. Nanavati, therefore, submitted that the claimant is not entitled to maintain the claim petition against the Insurance Company. He submitted that the claimant is the owner of the vehicle and not a third party. Therefore, he is not entitled to be indemnified by the Insurance Company in case of injury suffered by him in the accident.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, while drawing attention of this Court to the policy of the vehicle involved in the incident, which is a ‘two wheeler package policy’ has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the liability of the Insurance Compan