JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment dated 10th July 2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.27 of 2013 by the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Court), at Kallakurichi.)

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi.

2. M/s.The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited is the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant pleaded the facts by stating that on 15.06.2011, at about 06.00 a.m., while the respondent/owner was driving the Tata Indica Tourist Taxi TN-32-L-8595 from Tiruvannamalai to Kallakurichi Main Road, near Vanapuram, due to unavoidable reasons, dashed against the palm tree on the roadside, resulted in the road traffic accident. The respondent is the owner of Tata Indica Tourist Taxi. Thus, the facts admitted is that the respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, hit against the palm tree on the road side, resulted in an accident.

3. The respondent/claimant filed the Claim Petition under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the appellant/Insurance company. The contention of the respondent was that he sustained grievous injuries due to the road traffic accident occurred on 15.06.2011. The Claim Petition was filed only against the appellant/Insurance company as the respondent car was insured with the appellant/Insurance company. The appellant has defended the Claim Petition, categorically stating that the respondent/claimant being the owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-32-L-8595, is not a third party and therefore, there is no statutory coverage is provided in terms of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent/claimant being the owner of the vehicle, which met with an accident, cannot be construed as a third party nor the claim is covered under the statute with reference to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The “policy” issued to the owner of the Tata Indica Tourist Taxi bearing Registration No.TN-32-L-8595 covers only two kinds of risks and the same are as follows:

(1) own damages

(2) Liability only policy risk

5. The appellant/Insurance Company collected premium towards

(1) Own damage(OD)Cover

(2) TP liability cover and

(3) PA covers for owner-driver

6. Therefore, there is absolutely no statutory coverage is provided in terms of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the Claim Petition is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The Claim Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal has referred the Claim Petition as if it was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, misquoting of the provision could not dis-entitle the claimant from availing the rights. Misquoting of the provisions of law would not vitiate the proceedings itself. Therefore, such a contention deserves no merit consideration.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance company strenuously contended that the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 envisages Insurance coverage for a 'THIRD PARTY', who may suffer the risk of injury, or death, due to the use of the Motor Vehicle, on a Public Place. Thus, the owner of a Motor Vehicle has to mandatorily buy a Policy of Insurance, in terms of Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides coverage, for a 'THIRD PARTY', (other than a party to the Contract), in respect of a bodily injury or death, caused due to use of Motor Vehicle on a Public Road.

8. The grievances of the appellant/Insurance company is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciat