The owner/insured is not covered under the Motor Vehicles Act for claims made under Section 147, thus rendering the claim petition unmaintainable.

Sri.B.Pradeep., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.Visweswaraiah., learned counsel for respondents 1(A, B and D) have appeared in person.

2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 16.02.2017. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts are these:

It is contended that on the Twenty-fourth day of March 2013 between 8:30 - 9:00 pm., on Mandya - Bannur road, near Marasinganahalli, the claimant was proceeding in a Lorry bearing Registration No.MEY-5474. It is said that the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a Tractor - Trailer. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to District Hospital, Mandya and thereafter readmitted to St.Joseph Hospital, Mysore and took treatment as an inpatient.

Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel. The first respondent did not file written statement. The second respondent Insurance Company filed written statement denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:05.08.2016 partly allowed the claim petition. The Insurance Company has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

6. The point that requires consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the Claim Petition.

7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on the Twenty-fourth day of March 2013.

It is not in dispute that the claimant Srinivas was the owner/ insured of a lorry bearing Registration No.MEY-5474 and it is also not in dispute that his own driver caused the accident. The Tribunal has failed to notice that the risk of owner/ insured is not required to be covered under Section 163-A and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore, the owner/ insured is not a third party. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the risk of owner/ insured is not covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has erroneously entertained the Claim Petition. In my view, the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

8. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated:05.08.2016 passed by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, MACT Srirangapatna in M.V.C.No.223/2015 is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Claim Petition is rejected.

9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed.

The Registry concerned is directed to refund the amount in deposit, if any to the Insurance Company after due identification.