The central legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of the vehicle, when driving, is considered a driver and is entitled to claim compensation under the insurance policy, based on the definition of 'driver' under Section 2(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Vivek Agarwal, J.

1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the award dated 16th May, 2007 passed in Claim Case No.39/2005 by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalgarh, Distt. Morena, whereby an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") on account of death of Dashrath Singh i.e. husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 4 has been rejected on the ground that since the owner of the vehicle was himself driving the vehicle and Insurance Company had not insured the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the claim is not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meera Bai and others as reported in 2007 ACJ 821 and also on the judgment in the case of Smt. Sunita Lokhande v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. as reported in 2008 ACJ 921.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 163-A of the Act, it is apparent that insurer of the motor vehicle of the authorised owner shall be liable to pay in case of death or permanent disability due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the second schedule, to the legal heirs or victim, as the case may be. In view of this provision, it has been argued that in fact the Insurance Company is required to indemnify the owner of the vehicle whose vehicle has been insured by the Insurance Company for the act of negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle creating liability on the owner of the vehicle from such rash and negligent driving. It is submitted that if the owner himself is driving the vehicle and some fault occurs in the vehicle resulting in an accident, then owner being not a third party, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable by the owner. In this regard, attention of this Court has been invited to the law laid down in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors as reported in 2008 ACJ 1441. Similarly, attention has been drawn to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 2009 ACJ 2020 wherein the Supreme Court has held that liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle, therefore, a person cannot be both a claimant and recipient with respect to the claim. In fact, Bench of this Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita and others as reported in 2012 ACJ 2400 has held in respect of the application under Section 163-A of the Act, that the same is not maintainable in case of accident by owner/driver.

4. It is apparent from the insurance policy, which has been exhibited in the present case as Ex.D/1, that premium of Rs.15/- was paid for the driver and the policy is a comprehensive policy.

5. The issue in the present case is similar to one which has been decided by the Allahabad High Court in the case of United India Insurance Company v. Meera Devi & Ors. as reported in I (2015) ACC 322 (DB) (All.). The Allahabad High Court has distinguished the judgments in the cases of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, I (2009) ACC 297 (SC); New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Meera Bai and Others, III (2007) ACC 655 (SC); Deepak Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 110(2004) DLT 523 (SC) and Chimaji Rao Shirke and Another v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., V (2000) SLT 708 and has held that when the owner was driving his own vehicle which met with an accident, the question is whether the insurance policy covers the personal insurance of the driver or not. In this regard, cover note of the insurance policy has been filed before the Tribunal and it is apparent from the said insurance policy that any person including the insured was entitled to drive t