The appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 12.07.2013 passed in MVC No.994/2009 on

the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT,

Tumkur.

2.

In this case, the accident in-question took

place on 10.01.2006 and the appellant/petitioner himself

was driving his car bearing Reg.No.KA-21/5522 and the

vehicle was damaged due to the accident. There is no

dispute that the vehicle is covered under the package

policy. After the accident, the petitioner made a claim for

vehicle damage before the insurance company submitting

the bills. The Insurance Company has paid Rs.1,07,474/-

and disallowed claim for Rs.69,327/- for want of bills.

3. The petitioner has filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Insurer

took a stand that the petition filed under Section 166 of

IMV Act is not maintainable by the owner-insured of the

vehicle. The Tribunal held that the petition itself is not

3

maintainable and rejected the petition on the ground that

the petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is not

maintainable by the owner of the vehicle against the

insurer in respect of damage caused to the vehicle of the

owner.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent would

submit that the application filed under Section 166 of IMV

Act has to be read with Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 and Section 165 of Motor Vehicle Act reads as

follows:

"A State Government may, by notification in

the Official Gazette, constitute one or more

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter

in this Chapter referred to as Claims

Tribunal) for such area as may be specified

in the notification for the purpose of

adjudicating upon claims for compensation in

respect of accidents involving the death of,

or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the

use of motor vehicles, or damages to any

property of a third party so arising, or

both."

(Emphasis supplied)

4

5.

Section 165 of M.V. Act makes it clear that the

Tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act would get jurisdiction

to decide the claim in respect of damage to the property of

a third party. In this case, the appellant is not a third

party and the property in question is not the property of a

third party. Hence, the insured cannot make a claim

against his own insurer to claim damages in respect of

damage to his own property by filing an application under

Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Hence, the view taken by the

Tribunal in rejecting the petition is in accordance with law.

6.

In view of the above, this Court is of the

considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JS/-