Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to cover the risk in case of injury/death of the insured himself in a motor accident.
2. The deceased Parkash Chand was the owner of Maruti van No. HP 01-0231. He was travelling in the said van on 26.3.1995 when it met with an accident. Claimants, who are the widow and minor children of the deceased, filed a claim petition for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van. Only the insurance company was made respondent in the case.
3. The insurance company in its reply took up a specific plea that the insurance company was not responsible since the liability to indemnify for death of the owner was not covered under the terms of the policy nor it was required to be covered under the provisions of the Act.
4. Learned Tribunal has held that since the van was insured with the respondent and the said fact was not denied, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Tribunal has relied upon a judgment delivered by a single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Kusum Sood v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. . The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:
(8) The position that emerges is that the taxi was driven by an authorised person who was an employee of the deceased and was having a valid licence. The taxi was duly insured with the insurance company. The law does not say that the owner of the vehicle is debarred from travelling in his own car. If some unfortunate event happens and owner of the vehicle dies, his legal heirs cannot be denied the compensation for the simple reason that the deceased was travelling without hire or reward. The plea of the respondent that the deceased was travelling in his own car and as such was a gratuitous passenger does not appeal to logic especially in view of the fact that the deceased had invested money in the purchase of the car which was duly insured and the expenses on the consumption of petrol were also borne by him. In view of this, I am of the view that he was indirectly paying for the running of the car. As such, it cannot be said that he was travelling in his car without any hire or reward.
5. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurance company has contended that the aforementioned judgment does not lay down the correct law. He submits that as per the scheme of the Act, insurance company is to indemnify the insured for the compensation payable by him. Therefore, the death or injury of the insured himself can never be covered under a policy issued under the Act. According to him there are separate policies which cover such risks. In the present case the policy only covers risks to third parties, goods, etc., but does not cover the risk to the owner of the vehicle.
6. Chapter 11 of the Act deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risk. Section 146 of the Act makes it obligatory on the part of any person using a motor vehicle except as a passenger to ensure that there is a policy of insurance covering third party risk, complying with the requirements of the said Chapter. This section debars an owner from using the vehicle till he has attained the policy fulfilling the requirements of this Chapter. Section 147 of the Act deals with requirements of policies and limits of liability. Under Section 147 of the Act, a policy of insurance is required to cover risk against any liability which may be incurred by the owner in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. With regard to public service vehicles the policy is also required to cover risk or bodily injury to any passenger of such vehicle. The policy under the terms of the Act is also required to cover workmen's compensation liability for the employees of the vehicle engaged in driving the vehicle or conductor of public service vehicle or other employees carried in a goods vehicle. These are the basic requirements of the policy, which in normal parlance is termed as 'Act policy'. The insurance company can undertake any other contractual liability and cover any other risk over and above the risks mentioned in Section 147 of the Act. Any policy issued by insurance company has to at least comply with the provisions of Section 147. We are not concerned with the limits of the policies mentioned in Section 147 (2) of the Act. Section 149 of the Act enjoins upon the insurer to satisfy the judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. Section 150 of the Act gives right to third parties against insurers on insolvency of the insured.
7. What is the purpose of an insurance policy which is compulsorily required under Motor Vehicles Act? The purpose clearly is that if any third party suffers damage due to an accident with a vehicle, it should be able to claim compensation from the insurance company. The intention of the legislature was that the injured party might find it very difficult to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, insurance was made compulsory so that the claimants could get their claims from the companies. However, the Act does not require that the policy necessarily cover risk to the owner himself. Some policies which in common parlance are termed as comprehensive policies cover various types of risk including own damage to the vehicle. In that event extra premium is to be paid and it is by way of a mutual contract between the insurance company and the owner that such risk is covered. In the present case no clause has been pointed out in the policy, which shows that the insurance company had undertaken to cover the risk in case of death or injury to the owner.
8. Another important question which arises is-can an insurance policy which is basically meant for covering risk to third parties be required to cover the loss to the owner himself? The owner in the present case has died. Supposing he was the injured, could he have filed a claim petition against himself? Obviously not. A person cannot be both the plaintiff and defendant. The insurance company is to indemnify the owner for damages which he is liable to pay. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the insured or his legal heirs cannot file a petition against insurance company directly. There must be first an award against the insured and only then the insurance company is liable. This is obvious from the scheme of the Act and especially Section 149 of the Act which provides that the insurance company has to satisfy judgments passed against the insured.
9. In fact, this matter now has been settled by the Apex Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : (2004)8SCC553 . The Apex Court held as under:
(8) Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
10. Therefore, I am in respectful disagreement with the law laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kusum Sood's case . The same is not good law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dhanraj's case : (2004)8SCC553 .
11. I am of the view that the correct position in law is that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in a case where the owner-insured himself suffers injury or death in the accident. The insured or his heirs cannot claim compensation from the insurance company unless the company has specifically undertaken to cover this risk.
12. In view of the above discussion, the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. The appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. The claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed. No orders as to costs.