The owner of a vehicle is not entitled to compensation under the insurance policy for personal injuries sustained in an accident.

1. This is an appeal against the award dated 28.2.1991 passed by the Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 12 of 1989, whereby an award of Rs.18,000 has been passed in favour of injured, respondent No. 1, who is owner of the vehicle.

2. On 22.12.1987 at about 12.30 in the night, the respondent No. 1, being owner of vehicle bearing registration No. MKS 8684, sitting on the left side of the driver of the vehicle, was travelling in connection with his business of collecting milk. Respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle. The vehicle has been insured with the appellant. As a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, the vehicle met with an accident and respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries, he lost his one eye and also suffered disfiguration. After calculating the damage, he filed an application under S.110 - A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (henceforth, 'the Act') claiming an amount of Rs.85,000 against the appellant and respondent No. 2.

3. Respondent No. 2 did not deny the ownership, insurance and the accident. He pleaded that the accident did not take place as a result of his negligence and respondent No. 1 has claimed exorbitant amount for the compensation. Appellant although did not dispute the ownership and insurance, but while challenging the claim specifically pleaded that policy does not cover the insured, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to owner of the vehicle who is respondent No. 1. Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record held that due to negligent driving of respondent No. 2, on 22.12.1987, the vehicle bearing registration No. MKS 8684, met with an accident. At the time of accident respondent No. 2 was authorised to drive the vehicle under a valid driving licence, respondent No. 1, suffered injuries and lost his one eye, therefore, claimant - respondent No. 1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000 with costs and interest from the appellant.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal and challenged the legality and correctness of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, but during arguments they limited their challenge and raised only a single question that respondent No. 1 being owner of the vehicle is not entitled for any compensation because insurance company had only to indemnify the liability of owner in case any award has been made against the owner of the vehicle.

5. Insurance policy is Exh. P1 and Exh. P1A. From perusal of the policy, it is evident that although this is a comprehensive policy, but the policy covers only third party risk and damage to the vehicle. Insurance policy was valid from 19.11.1987 to 18.11.1988. The claimant, Naresh Kumar Agrawal, AW 1, has in his statement stated that except Exh. P1 he did not get insurance for his own accident. Rajendra Kumar Jain, NAW 1, in his statement stated that the vehicle was insured for damage to the vehicle, injury to driver and third party risk. From the evidence on record it was established that under the said policy insurance of the owner is not covered for any injury.

6. The learned Tribunal relying on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru , 1987 ACJ 1 (MP), has allowed the claim filed by the owner of the vehicle. The law laid down under the above decision is that the insurance company is liable to cover the risk of a hirer / agent or his employee travelling with the goods in a goods vehicle as a passenger carried for reward or in pursuance of contract of employment. Learned Tribunal did not correctly look into the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Harishankar Tiwari (supra).

7. Claims Tribunals