JUDGMENT : Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.228 of 2000 on 7th December, 2001, this appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. Appellant herein is Insurance Company and respondent herein is claimant, who is the owner of the vehicle in question, before the Tribunal. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. One Thaniparthi Agam Rao (herein after referred to as the deceased) is the driver of the tractor belonging to the claimant. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 21-5-1997 at 6 A.M., while the deceased was driving the tractor bearing No.AP-15-7761 from the house of the claimant to the fields of the claimant and was proceeding on the Veerabhadruni tank at Sultanpur village, suddenly it was turned turtle and fell down, as a result of which, the deceased crushed under the said tractor and died on the spot. The tractor was completely damaged and the damage was assessed to Rs.96,000/-. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.52 of 1997 for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC was registered by the Julapalli Police. The tractor was insured with the respondent-Insurance company and the policy was valid upto 3-11-1997. Due to the damage of the tractor, the claimant is deprived of his livelihood from the tractor. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Hence, an application was filed by the claimant under Section 166 (1) (b) of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.96,000/- for the damages sustained to his tractor in the motor accident. Respondent filed a counter denying all the averments in the petition and contended that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and the driver was not having valid licence on the date of the accident. The vehicle is covered under the comprehensive insurance policy from 4.11.1996 to 3.11.1997 and the claimant has violated the policy terms and conditions and filed this case against the respondent-Insurance Company. Hence, this respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial before the tribunal: 1. The vehicle is covered under the comprehensive insurance policy from 4.11.1996 to 3.11.1997 and the claimant has violated the policy terms and conditions and filed this case against the respondent-Insurance Company. Hence, this respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial before the tribunal: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP-15-T-7761 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal having taken into consideration of the damages caused to the tractor evidencing from the oral testimonies as well as the documentary evidence, Ex.A3, awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved over the said award, this appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. Sri Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the policy being comprehensive one, no claim petition could be filed by the owner of the vehicle towards damages to the vehicle since there is no such provision in the Motor Vehicles Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant would contend that in the absence of any such plea or the point before the tribunal as to the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the claimant, the Insurance Company is barred from agitating the same in the present appeal for the first time. The fact that remains undisputed is that the tractor of the claimant was involved in an accident on 21.5.1997 and in that connection, a case was registered by the Julapalli Police and the driver of the tractor also died on the spot. In order to prove that damages were caused to the tractor due to the accident, P.W.2 who is a mechanic and who has attended to the repairs of the vehicle in question, has been examined and Exs.A.4 to 7 were marked. But, the point that arises for consideration before this Court, is: Whether the said claim petition is maintainable by the owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act? But, the point that arises for consideration before this Court, is: Whether the said claim petition is maintainable by the owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act? In this regard, before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to note the provisions of Section 165 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which read as follows: “A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.” Explanation:-- “For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles” includes claims for compensation under Section 140 (and Section 163-A).” A bare reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the claiming of compensation would arise only in case of bodily injuries or the death of the persons or damage to the property of a third party, arising out of the use of the motor vehicles. Therefore, it can be said that the above provision is not so extensive conferring any right to the owner of the vehicle to claim any damages with regard to the vehicle, before the tribunal. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in A. Visweswara Rao Vs. United India Insurance CO., 2004-ALD-1-442 wherein it was held at paragraph 9 as follows: “IN the decision referred in United India Insurance Company Limited, Cuddapah v. Y.Chandra Rao, case (supra), it was held: “under law, the State Government is required to constitute Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims tribunals or Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons arising out of use of motor vehicles or damages to property. The claims in respect of death or bodily injury or damage to pay can only be preferred by a third party which is defined under Section 145 (g) of the Act to mean as to include the government. Being an inclusive definition it should receive expanded meaning having regard to the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 which only specify persons died or receiving bodily injuries in accidents involving motor vehicles. The owner of the vehicle, whose vehicle is damaged or whose property is damaged in the accident involving motor vehicle ex facie is not covered under the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the act. Therefore, it must be construed that the tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the act is not vested with the power to adjudicate the claims by the owners of motor vehicle and under law they are required to obtain policy of insurance covering third party risk”. In fact, the learned Judge had referred to the decision of a Division Bench in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Odetimallu Bai, 1995 acj 851 (AP) and also other decisions in M. Akkawa v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 1988 ACJ 445 (kar), Mathew Koshy v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., 1989 ACJ 21 (Ker) and Oriental Fire and Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Shakuntala Devi, 1991 ACJ 177 (All). In Dhaniraj Agarwalla v. Manorama bai and Another, 1989 ACJ 265 (Ori), while dealing with the aspect as to who is a third party, it was held at para 7: “…………Third party has not been defined under the Act. Insurance is a contract between the insurer and the owner of the vehicle. They being the two parties to the contract any other person is a third party. The driver and other persons employed in the vehicle are also third parties. A third party would not be confined to person other than the occupants of the vehicle” In General Manager, Kerala State Road transport Corporation v. K.P. Saradamma, air 1989 Ker. They being the two parties to the contract any other person is a third party. The driver and other persons employed in the vehicle are also third parties. A third party would not be confined to person other than the occupants of the vehicle” In General Manager, Kerala State Road transport Corporation v. K.P. Saradamma, air 1989 Ker. 23 , a Division Bench of Kerala High Court while dealing with the jurisdiction of Claims Tribunals under section 110 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held: “under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles act, the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunals is confined to (1) claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, and/or (2) damages to any property of a third party so arising. In other words, the Tribunal has jurisdiction, apart from its power to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of death or personal injury to persons, only to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving, ‘damages to any property’ of a third party. Therefore loss of income from a bus which was involved in an accident cannot be termed as ‘damages to any property’ coming within the ambit of section 110. Petition under Section 110 can be filed only for claiming compensation under the different heads specified and where the owner or driver of the motor vehicle or the insurer as the case may be, are liable. The proper forum for adjudicating other claims and claims against strangers, is the Civil Court.” “In view of the clear legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur had not committed any illegality in dismissing the O.P. on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to avail his other remedies, if any, in accordance with law. Except making this observation, no relief can be granted in the present civil revision petition.” The observations made by this Court in the above decision, squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand. Under Sections 140 and 165 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of the vehicle cannot file a claim petition before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation towards damages of his vehicle involved in the accident. Under Sections 140 and 165 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of the vehicle cannot file a claim petition before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation towards damages of his vehicle involved in the accident. In the instant case, the claim petition is filed by the claimant under Section 166 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act. As already stated, the provisions of section 165 (1) of the Act makes it clear that the claiming of compensation would arise only in case of bodily injuries or the death of the persons and damage to the property of a third party, arising out of the use of the motor vehicles and the said provision is not so extensive conferring any right to the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident to claim any damages with regard to the vehicle before the tribunal. Section 166 (1) (b) of the M.V. Act is subject to the provisions of Section 165 (1) of the said Act. In this view of the matter and in view of the observations made by this Court in the judgment (citation-1 supra), I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that in the absence of any preliminary issue or the point as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the Insurance company cannot for the first time agitate the same before this Court, cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs coupled with the provisions of section 165 (1) of the Act as well as the observations of this Court in judgment (citation1 supra), there is no other go except to hold that the tribunal is not justified in passing the order impugned and consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this C.M.A filed by the Insurance company, is allowed setting aside the order impugned. No costs.