1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/company against the award dated 17.3.2008, passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindori in M.C.C. No.7/2007, whereby the respondent/claimant has been awarded Rs. 32,859/- with interest @ 5% per annum.

2. In this appeal the Insurance Company has particularly challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the appellant has got a liability to indemnify the owner of the insured vehicle, when the insured vehicle causes accident resulting in death or injury to any third person, but when the insurer/owner, is himself the claimant then the claim application is not maintainable under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the case law reported in, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Abdul Rahman and others [1997(II) MPLJ 224] and Hemlata Sahu and others v. Ramadhar and another [2000 ACJ (I) 134].

3. The cross objection has been filed by the respondent/claimant on the grounds that the learned Tribunal wrongly awarded less compensation in favour of the respondent. No amount has been awarded on account of loss of income of the period of treatment and future treatment. Learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation without adopting multiplier system. The assessment of the compensation is not proper and reasonable, and deserves to be enhanced under the head of transportation, vehicle maintenance, agonies, discomforts, loss of income, loss of enjoyment and attendant expenses also. Therefore, the respondent/claimant prayed to enhance quantum of compensation of allowing cross-objection.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant opposed the contention of the appellant on the ground that such type of objection has not been raised in its written statement. Extra premium was paid by the claimant, hence, company is liable to pay compensation in favour of the claimant.

5. Learned Tribunal found that the claimant respondent sustained grievous injuries in his left hand. He has not sustained any kind of disability. The respondent/claimant has not established that Rs. 40,000/- was spent on his treatment. Hence, learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.32,859/- in different heads.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7. Under section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is prescribed that the Claims Tribunal is meant for adjudicating upon claims for compensation arising out of the use of motor vehicle involving death/injury or property loss of a third party. No such Tribunal can adjudicate upon a dispute which is the result of a damage to oneself i.e. in a case where the vehicle owner driving his own vehicles suffers an injury.

8. In case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another, [(2004) 8 SCC 553], it is clearly held that the liability of the insurer does not extend to the owner of the vehicle and the claim application is liable to be dismissed. This has been followed in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha [AIR 2007 SC 1054], wherein it has been held that :-

“liability of the insurer company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an insured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify insured, therefore, does not arise.”

9. An application under section 166 is based on the principle of negligence. In the absence of any negligence, no liability can be saddled in the instant case. It was pleaded by the claimant himself that while he was going on his motorcycle, suddenly a dog jumped before his bike. While trying to save the dog, the respondent/claimant fell down which caused the accident.

10. It is alleged by the respondent that the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability of