Point of Law
Expression “claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles” includes claims for compensation under section 140 and section 163A.

JUDGMENT :

Assailing the Award and decree dated 26.04.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.370 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court - III), Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), appellant - Insurer filed the present appeal.

2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- towards compensation against the appellant - respondent viz., M/s. National Insurance Company Limited with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon for the to Ford Ikon Car bearing registration No.AP 20F 4747 belongs to respondent - claim damages caused petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer and the learned counsel for respondent - claimant.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer that the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation since owner of the vehicle cannot claim any compensation for own damage. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent is not a third party as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is his further contention that respondent - claimant cannot invoke the provisions under the M.V. Act, 1988 and if at all the respondent is having any grievance with regard to the damage to his own vehicle, he has to approach proper forum like Ombudsman or Consumer Forum etc. According to him, the Tribunal without considering the said aspects awarded the compensation fixing the liability on the appellant.

5. On the other hand, supporting the award, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that on consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the un-known vehicle. With the said findings, the Tribunal by referring the documents and also depositions, has awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of payment towards damage caused to the vehicle. According to him, the Tribunal did not commit any error warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.

6. On the analysis of the entire evidence, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the unknown vehicle. In the absence of contra evidence, there is no dispute with regard to the accident and damage to the vehicle of the respondent.

7. The appellant - Insurer filed Ex.B1 - policy. The said policy is a “Comprehensive Policy IXI - Private Car”. Section - 1 of the said policy deals with “loss or damage”, and as per the same, the Insurance Company will indemnity the insured against loss or damage to the Motor Car and/or its accessories whilst thereon. Clause (f) of the said Section deals with ‘by accidental external means’. It is also relevant to note that as per the said policy, an amount of Rs.50/- was paid by the respondent towards third party damages - unlimited, and for employees (vehicle) an amount of Rs.15/- was paid.

8. In the present case, on 09.05.2001, at about 9.00 p.m., near Kodad Cross roads, Khammam, an unknown vehicle hit the car and left the place. In the said accident, the car of the respondent was badly damaged on its right portion, apart from other parts. According to the learned counsel for the respondent - claimant, the claimant spent an amount of Rs.40,380/- towards repairs of the car.

9. The accident was reported to the Local Branch of the appellant and the damaged vehicle was surveyed by the Licensed Surveyor of the Insurer. According to the respondent - claimant, he has informed the accident to the local branch of the appellant and requested them to pay the damages caused to the vehicle in view of Ex.B1 policy which was in force as on the date of the accident. But, there is no response from the local branch of the insurer. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has also issued a legal notice and the local branch office of the app