Insurers are not liable for bodily injuries to vehicle owners under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act; thus, claims under Section 163A cannot be entertained if the owner is also a claimant.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, assailing the judgment and award dated 23.07.2010, in MACP No.1253 of 2005, passed by the Claim Tribunal at Vadodara.

2. According to case of the respondents-claimants that on 20.06.2005, the deceased Nilesh Soni, met with an accident when the motorbike upon which he was riding dashed against the opposite truck involved in the alleged accident, as a result of which, the deceased was succumbed to his injuries. The respondents-claimants being legal heirs and representatives had filed a claim petition invoking Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act joining the driver, owner and insurance companies of both the vehicles. Learned Claim Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 23.07.2010, awarded a sum of compensation of Rs.2,38,300/- on the basis of structured formula with interest @ 7.5%, holding the appellant-insurance company as well as the insurance company of the truck liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The claimant Pinal Soni being an owner of the bike, was also joined as a party opponent in the claim petition. The bike was insured with present appellant insurance company.

3. On aforesaid factual premise, the appellant-insurance company being aggrieved with the judgment and award has preferred the present appeal on the legal ground that, the insured i.e. Pinal Soni being an owner of the bike, could not claim compensation from his own insurance company as he cannot be termed as third party.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for and on behalf of the insurance company and Mr. Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of original claimants-respondents herein. Mr. Vasant Shah, learned counsel who is representing the Oriental Insurance Company with whom the offending truck was insured, has chosen to remain absent, though called out repeatedly. It needs to be noted that, on 07.12.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while adjourning the matter, observed that, since long Mr. Vasant Shah is not appearing in the proceedings and on the next date, the matter would proceeds on its merits in his absence. Even on earlier occasion also he remained absent and his absence was observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The matter is of year 2010 and therefore, this Court cannot wait further and thus, in absence of learned counsel Mr. Vasant Shah, the matter was heard finally.

5. Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant-insurance company has submitted that, the judgment and award so far as fixing the liability on the part of the appellant-insurance company is concerned, is contrary to the law. It is in this context, she submitted that, deceased Nilesh Soni being a rider of the motorbike, met with an accident as the said bike collided with the opposite truck. The bike was owned by the son of the deceased namely Pinal Soni. The son as well as other legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The son Pinal Soni being an owner of the bike was also joined as opponent along with the present appellant-insurance company with whom the bike was insured. In such circumstances, the learned tribunal failed to appreciate the legal provision in relation to the liability of insurance company contemplated under Chapter-11 of the Motor Vehicle Act which pertains to the insurance of motor vehicle against third party. Referring to Section 147 of the Act, learned counsel Ms. Pathak submitted that, the insurance p