The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of insurance policy terms and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to determine the liability of the insurance company in cases where the deceased was the owner and driver of the vehicle.

K. C. Gupta, J.

1. This revision petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , against the order dated 7.8.2001 (copy Annexure P-3) passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, gurgaon, vide which it was held that the claim petition is maintainable.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Siri bhagwan son of Ram Singh was the registered owner of jeep bearing registration no. HR 26-G 0179 (hereinafter called the offending vehicle ). He got it registered with the Department of Transport as maxi cab. He himself was working as driver of the said maxi cab.

3. On 15.8.2000 at about 11 a. m. Siri bhagwan was going in the offending vehicle from Pataudi to Rewari. In the way all of a sudden a dog came to cross the road. He tried to save the dog and in that process the offending vehicle struck against the tree after going out of control. Due to this collision with the tree, Siri Bhagwan received serious injuries and died at the spot. Several other occupants of the offending vehicle also received injuries.

4. Bimlesh, widow, Nisha and Sona, minor daughters, Naveen minor son and ram Singh father of Siri Bhagwan (the deceased) filed a claim petition for the grant of Rs.10,00,000 as compensation on account of death of Siri Bhagwan.

5. In the original claim petition Bimlesh, etc. , had impleaded Siri Bhagwan deceased through his widow Bimlesh, being owner and driver of the offending vehicle but later on dropped respondent No.2 Siri bhagwan being a dead person and also on the objection which was taken by the insurer. Thus, the claim petition remains against new India Assurance Co. Ltd. only.

6. The insurance company challenged the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that the insurer was to indemnify the insured qua loss of third party and it was not to indemnify the insured for his own rashness and negligence and thus bimlesh, etc. , being legal heirs of deceased owner and driver of the offending vehicle could not claim compensation on account of his death in the accident. Several other pleas were also taken.

7. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal vide order dated 7.8.2001 held that the claim petition was maintainable under sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present revision petition.

9. I have heard Mr. L. M. Suri, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sachin Mittal, the learned counsel for the respondents and carefully gone through the file.

10. A perusal of the claim petition (Annexure P-1) shows that Bimlesh, etc. , being the widow, children and father of siri Bhagwan deceased filed the claim petition for the death of Siri Bhagwan son of Ram Singh. The said petition was filed against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Siri Bhagwan being owner and driver (since deceased) through his widow Bimlesh. Later on, the name of respondent No.2 was struck off as Siri Bhagwan was a dead person. The petitioner insurance company filed reply. It stated that under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the risk in respect of the life of owner-insured is not covered. The insurance policy was effective in respect of claim of third party under the provisions of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in respect of accidental damage of the jeep itself only and for this reason the claim petition in respect of death of owner-insured is not maintainable in law.

11. It next submitted that the contents of the F. I. R. showed that the death had occurred as a result of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver-cum-owner himself. At any rate, the petitioner was not liable before the Claims Tribunal as under sec. 163-A of the Act which finds place in Chapter XI insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. So, the claim qua third party was maintainable. It further stated that no person can file a claim petition against himself. S