1. Award passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Dindori on 07.07.2004 in MACC No. 1/2003 is under challenge in this appeal, whereby death claim of Shivraji was allowed to the extent of Rs.2,08,00/- against appellant/Insurance Company.

2. Facts in brief are that Shivraji met with an accident on the night of 17.12.2002, when the motorcycle, which he was driving fell into a drainage and he sustained fatal injuries in the accident. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only against Insurance Company as the deceased was the insured owner/ driver of the vehicle. Appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that the petition should have been filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act but Tribunal giving a finding that the deceased was not negligent in driving his vehicle, rejected the objection and after assessing the quantum of compensation, allowed the claim petition in aforesaid terms.

3. The present appeal is being contested on the ground that no claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could have been allowed under the circumstances of the case, where owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was the tortfeasor. It is submitted that the expression of "any person or third party", does not include the owner of the offending vehicle and risk of only third party is covered under the statutory liability. Accordingly, a request was made to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned award with costs.

4. Appeal has been opposed by respondents-claimants.

5. Arguments of both the counsel have been heard and record has been perused.

6. From the facts pleaded in the claim petition, it is established that owner of the offending vehicle himself was the driver and he met with an accident, when his motorcycle fell into a drainage. The admitted facts also reflect that no other vehicle was involved in the accident. Thus, the respondents- claimants were pleading a case based on the principle of no fault liability, which means that accident occurred without there being negligence on the part of any person. This kind of claim is covered under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the fault, negligence or wrongful act of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, need to be established in such a case. Similar was the view of Tribunal, when it held that principle of social justice i.e. no fault liability was applicable here. Admittedly, the claim petition was not filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and actually the provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was invoked here. To address this objection, Tribunal further went on to hold that that the proceedings under Sections 163(A) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be invoked simultaneously.

7. It appears that the learned Tribunal was misunderstanding the scope of legal principles applicable in a case where the owner/driver gets injured on account of his own driving and without the involvement of any other vehicle. The legal position was settled in this reference vide decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. Vs. United Insurance Company & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 550, wherein the Apex Court held that "no claim can be maintained under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act by invoking the principle of no fault liability, when the claimant is himself the tortfeasor or his heir." The Apex Court referring to numerous earlier decisions held that deceased driver-cum-owner cannot be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle, as tortfeasor and beneficiary under the Insurance Policy cannot be one and the same person. The heirs of owner-driver in such cases can only seek compensation under the personal accident coverage and not as a third party. In principle, it can not be legally disputed that the Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires, in implied terms, that negligence, wrongful act etc. of the tortfeasor needs to be established. Therefore, the scope and implication of both the provisions are mutually exclusive and they can not be invoked simultaneously.

8. In the present case, respondents-claimants had filed the claim petition under the provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires statutory proof of liabilities and an objection was raised by appellant/Insurance Company about this legal malady, but the Tribunal was of the view that both these provisions can be invoked simultaneously. Clearly, this view is contrary to the the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra) , which has made the legal position sparkling clear and has settled that the owner-driver of the offending vehicle is not a thirty party in relation to his own vehicle and his death claim would be lie under the personal accident coverage only.

9. Having considered the factual and legal aspects of the case, this appeal is filed by appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the impugned award passed against it, is allowed and the impugned award is hereby set aside.

10. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent back to the concerned Tribunal for information and necessary compliance.