Personal accident claims are maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act if covered by insurance policy; the tribunal holds authority to adjudicate.

1. In this writ petition, the order dated 1.8.2006, passed by Eighth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.A.C.T.') in Claim Case No. 53 of 2006 whereby the objection relating to maintainability of the application under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was turned down, is under challenge.

2. Brief undisputed facts are that on 29.11.2005, Balram Mahilange, owner of Hero Honda Super Splendor motor cycle met with an accidental death while driving the said motor cycle, which was insured under a policy of insurance issued by the petitioner whereunder besides covering the third party risk, personal accident risk cover of the owner / driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000 was also provided.

3. The widow and three minor children of the deceased filed an application under S.163 - A of the Act. In the said application, it was not mentioned as to how the accident occurred. Compensation of Rs.10,80,000 was claimed.

4. In its written statement, the petitioner filed an objection that the liability of the insurance company was only to indemnify the insured against third party claims and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the owner who, while driving the vehicle, met with an accidental death.

5. Placing reliance on Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 1 (SC), the M.A.C.T. rejected the objection raised by the petitioner on the ground that the policy issued by the petitioner covered the personal accident risk of the owner / driver.

6. The main thrust of the argument advanced by Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under S.147 of the Act, the insurance company is not under a statutory liability only to indemnify the insured and to cover the risk of the owner / driver of the vehicle. So far as the personal accident risk cover granted by the petitioner under the policy of insurance is concerned, it was purely a contractual liability between the petitioner and the insured for which the appropriate forum is the Consumers Disputes Grievances Redressal Forum.

7. Reliance has been placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi , 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), for the proposition that liability of the insurer arises only when liability of the insured has been upheld, for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. Reliance was further placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC); Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 1 (SC); Saheblal Chandra v. Bhudayal Chandra, 2008 ACJ 1340 (Chhattisgarh); Beesaha v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 LT (CG) 116; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha, 2007 ACJ 818 (SC) and Urmila Bai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 ACJ 1705 (Chhattisgarh).

8. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Kunti Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2008 ACJ 2254 (MP), wherein it was held that where a policy of insurance covers the personal accident risk of the owner, an application by the owner of a vehicle or his legal representatives would lie before the M.A.C.T. for compensation subject to any limit given in the policy. Reliance was also placed on Sheela Bai v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2007 (2) MPHT 52 (CG) and Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein it was held that in case of an owner driven vehicle a claim would lie before the M.A.C.T. by the legal representatives of the owner only if a personal accident insurance cover is provided in