MOHASIN ULLAH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 29.11.2006, passed by MACT, Shujalpur in Claim Case No.05/1995 whereby claim petition filed by the appellant for realization of Rs. 10,200/ - for damages to the property, i.e., Tempo bearing registration No. MP/13C/2229. was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case that appellant filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that the appellant is the owner of the Tempo bearing registration No. MP/13 -C/2229, which was insured with respondent. It was alleged that on 18th March, 1993, the offending tempo turned down with the result the appellant sustained the loss of property of Rs. 10,200/ -, In the claim petition it was prayed that respondent be directed to make the payment of Rs. 10,200/ -. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide award dated 13.10.1998 and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,200/ - against which appeal was filed by the respondent before this Court which was numbered as MA No. 126/99 and was allowed by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2006 whereby the case was remanded with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh after affording an opportunity to the respondent to amend the written statement and then raise the issue which they sought to urge. It was also directed that learned Tribunal shall decide the case on the issue so raised as also on merits to avoid any further remand of the case if occasions so arises. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, learned Tribunal re -decided the petition by the impugned order whereby claim petition was dismissed on the ground that claim petition itself is not maintainable under section 165/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against which the present appeal has been filed. It was urged that learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition.

(3.) FROM perusal of the record it appears that the appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent and the claim petition was for compensation of loss of property. Since appellant himself was claiming the damages for the loss of property which was belonging to the appellant and was insured with the respondent, therefore, it was not a claim of third party. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of jurisdiction.