Subhasis Talapatra, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 09.06.2006 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon, in MAC Case No. 108/2005. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 14.02.2004 when the claimant-respondent No. 1 was proceeding towards Tezpur with his family members by driving his vehicle bearing registration No. AS-19/8647 (Tata Sumo) along with the National Highway 52 and suddenly a cow came in front of the vehicle and the claimant-respondent lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle turned turtle and dashed against a tree, the injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent and the insurance cover of the said vehicle by the appellant are not in dispute by either of the parties or in the appeal. As such, those findings are affirmed and further appraisal thereof is avoided.

2. The solitary question that has been projected in the appeal is that whether the appellant can be made liable for making payment of the awarded sum in the fact and circumstances of the case.

3. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has seriously criticised the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that the vehicle was duly insured with the comprehensive insurance policy by the appellant vide the Exbt.-10 document and as such the owner-cum-driver, the claimant-respondent is entitled to get due compensation from the appellant. According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, the admitted fact is that the accident occurred for fault of the claimant-respondent and no other vehicle was involved in the said accident When the negligence is on the part of the owner of the vehicle who was driving at the relevant point of time, no claim under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be set in against the appellant. In support of his contention, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jhuma Saha & Ors., as reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263, where the Apex Court held as under:

10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.

11. Liability of the insurer company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise.

4. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors., as reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736, the Apex Court held as follows:

7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. The Tribunal, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in taking the view that while determining the amount of compensation, the only factor which would be relevant would be merely the use of the motor vehicle.

8. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus:

163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis:--

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of