NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revi-sional jurisdiction of this court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the non-applicant/petitioner has called in question the pregnability of the order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panna, in Claim Case No. 1 of 1999.

(2.) The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is the insurer of Commander Jeep No. MP-16-A-4539 which was registered and insured as a private car and insurance policy covered the period from 3.12.1997 to 2.12.1998. The non-applicant is the owner of the said jeep and it was being plied as a taxi on 28.8.1998 when it met with an accident. The survey was conducted by the petitioner company. The non-applicant filled up the claim form in respect of loss caused to the vehicle and demanded indemnification for loss suffered by him because of the damage caused to the vehicle. The insurance company after appreciating the claim of the non-applicant communicated to him by letter dated 2.2.1999 that his claim for damage caused to the vehicle was not payable by the insurer. Feeling aggrieved by the same the non-applicant preferred an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and claimed damages for a sum of Rs. 74,306 which according to him was to be indemnified by the insurer. The insurance company at the outset filed an objection as to the maintainability of the claim under section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal took up the preliminary objection and rejected the same. The said order is the cause of grievance of the insurer revisionist.

(3.) Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the insurance company petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law by opining that own damage claim of an owner is tenable before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Act. It is also submitted by her that the Tribunal has not discussed the various provisions of the Act and passed a cryptic order which is vulnerable. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to sections 165 and 166 of the Act and has submitted that on a conjoint reading of these two sections it is plain as noon day that the claim in respect of the damages to the owner insured does not lie before the Claims Tribunal. She has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. P.N. Vijaiwargiya, 1992 ACJ 312 (MP).