Judgment :- 1. The following are the allegations contained in the Claim Petition: On 19.10.2007 at about 7.15 p.m. while the 1st Respondent, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-33-B-1199, parked on Erode-Karur Bye Pass Road, drove the vehicle and moved the same while the owner of the lorry one Paramasivam was attending to repairs in the said lorry and he died of the injuries sustained in the accident. The accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the First Respondent/driver. The lorry was insured with 2nd Respondent. Paramasivam was immediately rushed to Lotus Hospital at Erode and he died there at 10.15 p.m. on the same day. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident. He was earning about Rs.25,000/- per month by operating lorry, from agriculture and also from the contract business with the railways. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- is claimed as compensation. 2. In the Counter filed by the 1st Respondent it is alleged that while the 1st Respondent was moving the vehicle slowly, Paramasivam suddenly came across the lorry without noticing it and hence the accident took place. He was negligent at the time of accident. Since, the lorry was under Insurance coverage with the 2nd respondent, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the Claimants. 3. In the Counter filed by the 2nd Respondent, the following are stated: 3(a). It is denied that on 19.10.2007 at about 7.15 p.m. the accident took place by the negligence of the 1st Respondent and the said Paramasivam died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. It is a contract of indemnity. Under the Policy of Insurance, the insured himself or herself or their Legal Representatives cannot make a claim against themselves and asked the insurer to pay compensation. The legal heirs of the deceased/owner are not entitled to make a claim against themselves and asked the Insurer to pay compensation. The Petitioners cannot ask for an award against themselves. In the absence of an award against the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be called upon to satisfy any award. The policy does not cover the liability and the Petition is not maintainable. 3(b) The age of the deceased, his avocation and his monthly income alleged in the Petition are not admitted. In the absence of an award against the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be called upon to satisfy any award. The policy does not cover the liability and the Petition is not maintainable. 3(b) The age of the deceased, his avocation and his monthly income alleged in the Petition are not admitted. The age of the Petitioners are denied. The compensation claimed is highly excessive. Hence the Petition has to be dismissed. 4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal Judge recorded a finding that since the premium was paid for the owner’s risk also as admitted by R.W.2, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and an award was passed for Rs.16,80,000/-. Assailing the award, the Insurance Company is before this Court. 4(a). On 19.10.2007 at about 7.15.p.m. while the owner of the lorry, Paramasivam was attending to the repairs in the lorry, without noticing it, the First Respondent driver drove the vehicle, dashed against Paramasivam, who received fatal Injuries. He was admitted to the hospital, but died at 10.15 p.m. on the same day. Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company would strenuously contend that the Insurance Company indemnifies insured, the owner of the vehicle on contract of indemnity and he could not be treated to be a third party to the accident, that being one of the parties to the contract, the owner or his Legal Representatives could not make claim against the Insurance Company. It is his further contention that as per the settled law, it should have been held by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable as per the oral evidence available in this case and that no additional premium was paid to cover the owner’s risk. 5. Conversely, Mr. T. Murugamanickem, learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that there is no wrong on the part of the Tribunal to fasten the liability upon the Insurance Company, that when the owner was outside the vehicle, he was on the road, and he should have been considered as a third party and even though he is one among the parties to the contract of Insurance, still Insurance Company is very much liable to pay the compensation to him or to his Legal Representatives. 6. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant placed much reliance upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court and stressed that when there is no payment of premium for covering liability towards injury to the person or owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company has to be absolved from its liability to pay compensation. The gists of the decisions are as follows: (i) Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2004 (2) TN MAC 144 (SC) : 2004 (4) CTC 716 (SC) : 2005 ACJ 1: “In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunita Rathi & Ors., 1998 ACJ 121, 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. 10. In this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. We are unable to accept the contention that the premium of Rs.4,989/-paid under the heading “Own damage” is for covering “liability towards personal injury. Under the heading “Own damage”, the words “premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories” appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out”. (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma Saha and others, 2007 (2) TN MAC 56 (SC) : 2007 ACJ 818 . “13. The additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, Section 147 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act which in no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only would be attracted in the present case.” In this case, the Supreme Court has referred the decision in Dhanraj case (Supra) and held that unless additional premium was paid for the death or bodily injury of the owner, then no question of fixing liability upon the Insurance Company would arise. (iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors. (iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors. 2007 (2) TN MAC 9 (SC): “26. On the facts of this case, there is no finding that Mahmood Hasan, another employee of the owner was driving the vehicle. Even if he was, there is no finding of his negligence. The victim was the Regional Manager of the Company that owned the car. He was using the car given to him by the Company for use. Whether he is treated as the owner of the vehicle or as an employee, he is not covered by the Insurance Policy taken in terms of the Act – without any special contract – and since there is no award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act that is required to be satisfied by the insurer. In these circumstances, we hold that the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is also not obliged to satisfy the award of the Tribunal/Court and then have recourse to the insured, the owner of the vehicle. The High Court was in error in modifying the award of the Tribunal in that regard.” (iv) Kalaithal and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2004 (1) TN MAC 135 (DB) : 2004 ACJ 51 : “2………… Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nicoletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC) wherein the Apex Court traced the legislative history with regard to motor accident claims and held that the intention of the Legislature was to protect only third party rights and, therefore the legal representatives of the insured cannot claim compensation for the death of the insured himself. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.187 of 1999, decided on 26.7.2000, has held that the main purpose of the policy is to indemnify the insured against loss or damage arising out of the use of the motor vehicle owned by the insured; that the policies issued for motor vehicles are not the same as policies of life insurance and that the policy is meant to cover the liabilities arising out of the use of the motor vehicle insofar as the liabilities of the owner are concerned and the owner cannot claim to be treated as third party by becoming a passenger of his own vehicle. 4…………. 5. 4…………. 5. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Lakshmi, 1990 ACJ 390 (Madras) which was a case of accident between the Tractors due to negligence of the driver of one Tractor and the owner of the other, a Division Bench of this Court held that as far as the death of the owner is concerned there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay any compensation since no third party liability is involved and the policy covers only the liability of the Insurer to a third party.” (v) S. Dhanapal v. A. Jerome and others, 2007 (1) TN MAC 165 : 2008 ACJ 2480: “17. The argument that the insured owner of a motor vehicle involved in a motor accident can also claim to be a third party must, therefore, be rejected on first principles alone. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Kaliathal and others, 2002 ACJ 1035 was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kaliathal and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2004 ACJ 51 in which the Court has held as follows: “3. A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 187 of 1999, decided on 26.07.2000, has held that the main purpose of the policy is to indemnify the insured against loss or damage arising out of the use of the motor vehicle owned by the insured; that the policies issued for motor vehicles are not the same as policies of life insurance and that the policy is meant to cover the liabilities arising out of the use of the motor vehicles insofar as the liabilities of the owner are concerned and the owner cannot claim to be treated as third party by becoming a passenger of his own vehicle.” 7. From the above said decisions, the following points emerge: 1. When additional premium was not paid towards bodily injury to the person or death of the owner, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay compensation. 2. Neither owner nor his Legal representatives in case of his death could claim compensation from the Insurance Company on a contention that the owner is a third party. 3. When additional premium was not paid towards bodily injury to the person or death of the owner, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay compensation. 2. Neither owner nor his Legal representatives in case of his death could claim compensation from the Insurance Company on a contention that the owner is a third party. 3. Since the insured is indemnified by the Insurance Company for the compensation payable to third parties, there is no scope for the direction to the Insurance Company in the case of bodily injury or death to the owner, in the absence of payment of additional premium for the said purpose. 8. It is worthwhile to mention that on a careful scrutiny of the copy of policy in the name of the deceased would show that no additional premium was paid to cover any liability towards bodily injury or death of the owner of the vehicle. In such circumstance, the contention that additional premium was paid for covering the owner’s risk could not be countenanced. R.W.2, the official from the Appellant’s Insurance Company has categorically stated that no additional premium was paid to cover the risk for the owner. The Tribunal has observed that additional premium has been paid for owner’s risk also as admitted by R.W.2. This observation is wrong. R.W. 2 has stated unequivocal terms in his chief-examination that no additional premium was paid. In his cross-examination he has stated that an additional premium of Rs.50/- has been paid for the driver and owner. But the said statement is incorrect in view of the entry contained in Ex.R.2 policy. Rs.50/- additional premium has been collected for the purpose of workmen compensation for 2 employees. This additional premium does not cover the owner of the vehicle. 9. The above referred decisions clearly lay down the principle that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured unless additional premium is paid to cover liability towards bodily injury or death of the owner of the vehicle. In such a view of this matter, we are of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable by means of which liability was fastened on the present Appellant. The Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the Legal Representatives of the deceased/owner of the vehicle. The award is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the Legal Representatives of the deceased/owner of the vehicle. The award is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The Appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.