The main legal principle established in the judgment is that under 'no fault liability' of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company's liability is to indemnify the third party on behalf of the insured and does not cover the insured in case of their own injury or death.

M.L.Singhal, J.

1. Vide order dated 18.7.1998, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation under head "no fault liability to Smt. Darshan Kaur and others-claimants in claim application filed by them against United India Insurance Company Limited etc. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation to them on account of the death of their bread-winner Harjinder Singh. As per the facts put forth in the claim application Harjinder Singh was travelling on 18.1.1997 in Canter No. DL-IL-6251 which was owned by him. On the way tyre of the Canter burst and as a result of mishap, Harjinder Singh suffered fatal injuries. Canter was being driven by Gurnam Singh. It was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited.

2. Aggrieved from this award passed under the "no fault liability", United India Insurance Company Limited has come up in revision to this court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the United India Insurance Company Limited is not liable to reimburse the claimants. United India Insurance Company Limited would have been liable to reimburse if some body else had died while travelling by this Canter in accident. It is submitted that the contract of insurance entered into between Harjinder Singh and the insurer (United India Insurance Company Limited) is that the insurer will compensate the third party if it suffers injury or death and Harjinder Singh is called upon to compensate third party or the defendants of that third party. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Hemlata Sahu and Ors. v. Ramadhar and Anr., 2000 A.C.J. 134 - which is judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court where Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the basis of insurance is that if any liability arises then the insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the third party on behalf of the insured. But in case when the insured himself meets with an accident and dies then that risk is not covered by the insurance policy. The liability of insurance company is to compensate the insured towards the risk of third party and to satisfy the judgment and award passed against the insured.

4. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that the insurer is only to satisfy the award against the vehicle insured in respect of third party risk. Reading of Section 147 and 149 of the Act suggests quite clearly that the liability of the insurance company is to compensate the insured towards the risk of third party and to satisfy the judgment and award passed against the insured."

5. In M. Akkavva v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 1988 A.C.J, 445 (Karnataka) was involved a goods vehicle and son of the owner of the goods vehicle was accompanying the goods of his father being carried in the vehicle and the vehicle met with accident due to the negligence of its driver. Question arose whether the owner of the vehicle is to be compensated. Their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court held that owner of the vehicle who has the benefit of indemnity is himself not covered and his representative is in no better position unless he be an employee covered by the first proviso of Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act. The idea behind this ratio was that the son was in no better position than the owner i.e. his father. In that case, the son of the owner of the goods vehicle was accompanying the goods and not as an employee. It was observed that basically, a contract of motor insurance seeks to idemnify the owner of the vehicle against liability arising out of claims of third parties arising against the insured owner out of the use of the motor vehicle. A contract of insurance which stipulates to pay compensation for the death of the insured person himself cannot be said to be a contract of indemnity. If the owner of the vehicle, who has the benefit of indemnity is himself not cover