P.K. Musahary, J.

1. None appears for the appellant when the matter was called upon for hearing. Heard Ms. A. Paul, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Garo Hills, Tura in MAC Case No. 46 of 2001.

3. The respondent is the owner of the Vehicle (Motor Cycle) bearing registration No. ML-8-1069 and while he was driving the said motor bike, he received injuries in an accident that took place on 15.3.2000 at Tura Ringrey on National Highway 51 when a stray dog suddenly ran across the road and the vehicle hit the dog. The respondent was under treatment for a long period at various places including Guwahati and Kerela. He made claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming Rs. 18.92 lakh. The appellant contested the claim case. The learned tribunal on examination of the materials and evidence on record passed the award as under:

53. Having discussed several illustrious rulings of the Apex Court and other Hon'ble courts this tribunal decides this award based on the 2nd Schedule to M.V. Act, 1988 (as amended). Having arrived at a monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 20,000, and having decided the percentage of permanent partial disability at 40% and loss of earning disability at 40%, the annual loss of income is assessed at Rs. 240,000, Rs. 42,830, Rs. 197, 170, i.e., Rs. 16430 p.m. and 40% of which comes to Rs. 6,572 p.m. say Rs. 6,500. Since the claim is related to non-fatal accident, the same is computed as per the Clauses 4 and 5 of the 2nd schedule to M.V. Act, 1988 (as amended). The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 50 years and accordingly going strictly by the schedule the multiplier needs to be 13 as such the amount of compensation, thus, works out to:

Sub Clause (i) pain and sufferings

Under Clause 5(b) – Disability in non-fatal accidents:

54. Since the case is not governed by the clause applicable to fatal accident the deduction envisaged thereto as indicated in the NOTE to the 2nd Schedule can not be applied in the instant case.

55. Simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 2.5.2001 will accrue to this award till 28.10.2004. Thereafter, the interim relief Rs. 25,000.00 paid to the claimant on 28.10.2004 shall be deducted from the principle award and interest for the balance amount shall be paid @ 9% p.a. till the date of payment.

4. The appellant was made liable for payment of the aforesaid award including the interest thereon and was directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which penal interest at the rate of Rs. 12% shall accrue.

5. The main issue raised by the appellant in this appeal is whether the insurer is liable to compensate the owner-driver of the accident vehicle for his death or bodily injury, he being not a third party within the meaning of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, in its Memo of Appeal, referring to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Dhanraj vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2004) 8 SCC 558, attempts to make out a case that liability of Insurance Company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third party or in respect of damage to property and, therefore, where the insured, i.e., an owner of the vehicle has not incurred any liability towards the injury caused to himself, the insurance company equally has no liability to indemnify.

6. Ms. Paul, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that law has been settled by the Apex Court that if an additional premium is paid by the owner of the vehicle so as to cover any risk for his death or bodily injury, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner-driver. In support of her submission, she refers to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jhu