Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

This appeal is by the Insurance Co. against the judgment ad award dated 8-7-2011 passed by MACT, Lakhimpur in MAC Case No. 25/2009.

2. The brief facts, which may be necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 12-03-2008, the son of the claimant was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-07/B5237(tracker). The offending vehicle was a commercial passenger vehicle. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the son of the claimants fell down from the vehicle and sustained injury. Immediately he was shifted to hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. The mother of the deceased filed a claim petition praying for compensation and the learned tribunal by the impugned judgment, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,86,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the insurance co. preferred the appeal.

4. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. and Ms. E. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents were heard.

5. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. submitted that the claim petition was filed by the owner/insured of the vehicle against the driver and Insurance Co. for the death of the son of the claimant, who was not a third party, and as such, the claim petition was not maintainable.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the offending vehicle was a passenger vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as passenger, and as such, the insurance co. was liable to pay compensation, as the vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident. Admittedly the offending vehicle No. AS-07/B-5237 was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Co. and on the relevant date, one Aditya Sarma was the insured and owner of the vehicle. The policy was a package policy for passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The claim petition was filed by the mother of the deceased. It is also true that deceased was the son of the owner of the vehicle.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Dhanraj -VS- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 553 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS- Kendra Devi and Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 299 submits, that the claimant himself was the insured and owner of the vehicle, and as such, even in a comprehensive policy, the liability of the insurer u/s 147 of the MV Act was to indemnify the insured against the liability incurred towards a third party or in respect of damages to property of a third party, and as such, where the insured or the owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party, the Insurance Co. cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. Further contention of the learned counsel was that the claimant being insured and not a third party cannot maintain a claim before the MACT.

8. Evidently registered owner of the vehicle was Aditya Sarma, father of the deceased. It is no doubt true, that the term 'owner' under the Motor Vehicle Act is not strictly confined to registered owner in all cases. Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines the term "owner" as under :-

"(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement"

9. A plain reading of the above provision would show that the term "owner of the Motor Vehicle" includes the registered owner and when the registered owner is a minor, the guardian of such minor is considered as the registered owner. When the vehicle remains in actual possession & control of any person, other than the registered owner by virtue of any hire-purchase agreement or hypothecation etc, lease or otherwise and the owner of the vehicle ceased to have