Anima Hazarika, J.

1. In this appeal the appellant/claimant has challenged the judgment dated 30.7.2007 passed in MAC Case No. 203/2005 by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (MACT for short), Sonitpur, Assam. Brief fact of the case is that on 17.5.2004 the appellant was riding his scooter bearing registration No. AS 12B 4220 from Lokra towards Tezpur. When the appellant reached Khelmati NH 52 at about 10 AM, suddenly a cow appeared before the running scooter and while the appellant was trying to save the cow, his scooter got capsized and he fell down. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his person and was taken to Kanaklata Civil Hospital at Tezpur by the local people. He was treated for about 6 months by different doctors and spent about Rs. 50,000/- for such treatment. The accident caused multiple injuries on different parts of his body for which he could not do any hard work which has affected his earning. His scooter was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, Tezpur Branch, Tezpur vide policy No. 200201/31/04/6700756 for the period w.e.f. 13.05.2004 to 12.05.2005.

2. Relying on the insurance policy the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 163 (A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act for short) before the MACT, Tezpur claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Opposite party, i.e. National Insurance Company Limited. In the said claim petition, the appellant has shown himself as owner and driver of the scooter. The aforesaid claim petition was registered as MAC Case No. 203/2005.

3. The opposite party after receiving the notice in the case, submitted its written statement thereby raising the question of maintainability of the claim petition and also denied the claim made therein by the respondent Insurance Company. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the written statement are quoted herein-below:-

3. That the claimant has no Locus Standi to file the instant claim against this opposite party in the Hon'ble Tribunal. It may be mentioned herein that the claimant himself is the owner of the accident vehicle as well as the insured of this opposite party and as such he is in no way a third party in respect of the accident vehicle and that being so, he can not claim compensation under the provisions of law laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for third party claim.

4. That it is further submitted that the claimant is the owner of the accident vehicle which is insured with this opposite party and that being so, the claimant, being the insured of this opposite party, can not recover any compensation, whatsoever, from this opposite party by way of third party claim. It may be mentioned herein that under Section 149 of the M.V. Act an insurer is duty bound to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks; but, here, in the instant claim, the person insured himself is the claimant and as such the instant claim is not maintainable in law at all.

5. That this opposite party being, in no way in law, liable to pay any compensation, whatsoever, to the claimant on account of the alleged accident, the instant claim is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. During the trial, learned tribunal framed following two issues:

(1) Whether the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle No. AS 12B 4220 (scooter)?

(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if yes, what will be the quantum of compensation and by which of the respondents this amount shall be paid?

5. So far the issue No. 1 is concerned, the learned Tribunal answered the same in the affirmative with a finding that claimant was involved in the aforesaid accident which occurred on 17.5.2004 and sustained injures arising out of use of his own vehicle (scooter) bearing No. AS 12B 4220 and the accident occurred due to his own fault.

In respect of issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal after making elaborate discussion regarding the claim and submissions