Judgment : Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Chairman-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur in O.P.No.4 of 1998 on 4th November, 1999, this appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. Appellant herein is 2nd respondent-the Insurance Company and 4th respondent herein is the driver of the lorry and respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the wife and sons of the deceased by name T. Abdul Rahim (herein after referred to as the deceased), are the claimants. The status of the parties will herein after be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally for the death of the deceased in the motor accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 15-5-1997 while the deceased was transporting mangoes in a lorry bearing No.A.P.02-V-2725 from Bangalore to Hyderabad and while the lorry was proceeding near Pamurai near Anantapur on N.H.7 Road, the 1st respondent-driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as result of which, the driver lost control over the lorry and the lorry turned turtle and due to that, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Anantapur Taluk Police registered the same as a case in Crime No.38 of 1997 against the driver-1st respondent. The deceased was the owner of the said lorry and he insured the vehicle with the Insurance Company and it was in force at the time of accident. Both the driver and the Insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation. The deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident and he was doing business in Mangoes and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the claim application is filed for a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The 1st respondent-driver remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter contending that the policy was in force and it covers only the 3rd parties, but not the owner's death or his partial or permanent disability if occurred in the course of accident. The policy does not contemplate any compensation to the owner himself from the Insurance Company. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following points were framed for trial before the tribunal : 1. The policy does not contemplate any compensation to the owner himself from the Insurance Company. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following points were framed for trial before the tribunal : 1. Whether the death of the deceased T.Abudl Rahim is the resultant of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.A.P.02-V-2725 as alleged in the petition.? 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? In order prove the case of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal having come to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driven by its driver and relied upon a decision of this Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vijayawada V. Doredla Satyanarayana And Ors 1997 (5) ALD 32 (DB) Allowed the O.P awarding a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-to the claimants with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization by directing the 2nd respondent- Insurance company to deposit the same. Aggrieved over the said award, this appeal is filed by the Insurance Company-2nd respondent in the O.P. Mr. T.Ramulu, learned standing counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the owner of the vehicle is not covered by the policy and further contended that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal has been over ruled in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that since the owner has already died, there is no other go for the widow and children of the deceased except to file a claim petition claiming compensation from the Insurance Company and apart from that, 50% of the amount which was already deposited by the Insurance Company has been withdrawn by the claimants. A perusal of the award clearly goes to show that while passing the award, the Tribunal has mainly relied upon the decision 1st cited wherein it was observed by this Court as follows: "Judicial opinion is heavy for the proposition that where compensation is claimed in respect of death or bodily injury caused to the owner of the goods while travelling in his goods vehicle along with his goods, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Even though the policy of insurance does not cover the owner's risk, it cannot be said that when the owner of the goods happens to be the owner of the vehicle also, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation." When the said decision was appealed before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8598 and 8599 of 1997, the said appeals were allowed by clarifying that that the liability of the insurance company and the driver is only covered to the extent of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and no more. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-driver pressed into service some more judgments of the Apex Court reported in Dhanraj V. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., And Another 2005 ACJ 1 wherein it was held at paragraphs 8 and 9 as follows: "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." "In the case of Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., V. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), it has been held that the liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect of damages to property. Thus, where the insured, i.e., an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the insurance company has no liability also." In a decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd., V. Jhuma Saha And Others 2007 ACJ 818 , it was held at paragraph 10 as follows: "The Deceased was the owner of the vehicle. Thus, where the insured, i.e., an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the insurance company has no liability also." In a decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd., V. Jhuma Saha And Others 2007 ACJ 818 , it was held at paragraph 10 as follows: "The Deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving, the question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable." In a decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V. Meera Bai And Others 2007 ACJ 821 it was observed at paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows: "It is submitted on behalf of the appellant insurance company that the High Court was clearly in error in awarding a sum of Rs.1,99,500 by way of compensation along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, in view of the fact that the policy of insurance did not cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle, who was the insured. He relies upon a decision of this court in Dhanraj V. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 2005 ACJ 1 (SC) and contends that the judgment clearly lays down that in the absence of coverage in respect of the owner, the claim could not be sustained. We have perused the aforesaid judgment. It does support the case of the appellant." "Counsel for the respondents submits that the insurance policy does cover the risk to the driver of the vehicle and drew our attention to the insurance schedule. We find that the schedule covers the "paid driver and/or conductor". Obviously, the owner, who is himself driving the vehicle, is not covered under the policy. In this view of the matter, this appeal has to be allowed." In view of the settled law as mentioned above, no liability can be fastened against the Insurance company for the death of the owner of the vehicle unless an extra premium is paid in the insurance company covering the risk of the owner of the vehicle also. In this case, admittedly, no such premium was paid. In this case, admittedly, no such premium was paid. In this view of the matter, I feel that the tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability against the Insurance company to pay the compensation and therefore, the said finding is liable to be set aside. In the course of arguments, it is submitted that 50% of the amount was deposited with proportionate costs and interest in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 22-2-2000 and the same has been withdrawn by the claimants. Since the claimants are the L.Rs of the owner of the vehicle, who died in the accident, it is open to the Insurance Company to recover this amount from the estate of the L.Rs. of the deceased. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed. No costs.