JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 09.06.2006 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon, in MAC Case No. 108/2005. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 14.02.2004 when the claimant-respondent No. 1 was proceeding towards Tezpur with his family members by driving his vehicle bearing registration No. AS-19/8647 (Tata Sumo) along with the National Highway 52 and suddenly a cow came in front of the vehicle and the claimant-respondent lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle turned turtle and dashed against a tree, the injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent and the insurance cover of the said vehicle by the appellant are not in dispute by either of the parties or in the appeal. As such, those findings are affirmed and further appraisal thereof is avoided. 2. The solitary question that has been projected in the appeal is that whether the appellant can be made liable for making payment of the awarded sum in the fact and circumstances of the case. 3. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has seriously criticised the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that the vehicle was duly insured with the comprehensive insurance policy by the appellant vide the Exbt.-10 document and as such the owner-cum-driver, the claimant-respondent is entitled to get due compensation from the appellant. According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, the admitted fact is that the accident occurred for fault of the claimant-respondent and no other vehicle was involved in the said accident When the negligence is on the part of the owner of the vehicle who was driving at the relevant point of time, no claim under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be set in against the appellant. In support of his contention, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jhuma Saha & Ors., as reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263 , where the Apex Court held as under: 10. 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. Jhuma Saha & Ors., as reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263 , where the Apex Court held as under: 10. 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. 11. Liability of the insurer company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise. 4. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors., as reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 , the Apex Court held as follows: 7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. The Tribunal, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in taking the view that while determining the amount of compensation, the only factor which would be relevant would be merely the use of the motor vehicle. 8. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus: 163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis:-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, 'permanent disability' shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. The said provision cannot be said to have any application in regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The question is no longer res integra. 5. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, as reported in (2007) 3 SCC 700 , the Apex Court laid down the law to the effect that where the claim relates to the own damage claims, it cannot be adjudicated by the claims Tribunals as setup under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But it has to be decided by another forum i.e. the forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 (in short 'the CP Act'). In the Tribunal, essentially there were three parties i.e. the insurer, the insured and the claimants. On the contrary, before the Consumer Forums there would two parties i.e. the owner of the vehicle and the insurer. The claimant does not come onto the board. Therefore, there no third parry is involved. The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Premkumari Vs. Prahlad Dev, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 193 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 338 . 6. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors., as reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 , the Apex Court has espoused the law as under: 11. Provisions relating to grant of compensation occurring in Chapter XI and XII of the Act have been enacted by Parliament in order to achieve the purpose and object stated therein. Section 146 of the Act lays down the requirements for insurance against third party risk. Where a third party risk is involved, an insurance policy is required to be mandatorily taken out. Section 146 of the Act lays down the requirements for insurance against third party risk. Where a third party risk is involved, an insurance policy is required to be mandatorily taken out. The requirements of policies and the limits of liability, however, have been stated in Section 147 of the Act. Section 147(1)(b) of the Act, reads as under: 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:-- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which:-- * * * * (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2):-- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including 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 in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required:-- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee:-- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. The provisions of the Act, therefore, provide for two types of insurance - one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. Whereas the insurance company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident; in case involving owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property. 12. It is not a case where even Section 163A of the Act was resorted to. The respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the Act. Only an act policy was taken in respect of the motor vehicle. Submission of the learned Counsel that being a two wheeler, the vehicle was more prone to accident and, therefore, whosoever becomes victim of an accident arising out of the use thereof would come within the purview of the term "a person" as provided for in Section 147 of the Act, in our opinion, is not correct. 13. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the quantum of the premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an 'act policy', the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If the contention of the learned Counsel is to be accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act become otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. It is one thing to say that life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational. 14. Only because driving of a motor vehicle may cause accident involving loss of life and property not only of a third party but also the owner of the vehicle and the insured vehicle itself, different provisions have been made in the Insurance Act as also the Act laying down different types of insurance policies. The amount of premium required to be paid for each of the policy is governed by the Insurance Act. A statutory regulatory authority fixes the norms and the guidelines. 7. In Sadanand Mukhi (supra), it has been further held: 15. Keeping in view the aforementioned Parliamentary object, let us consider the fact of the present case so as to consider as to whether the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation in relation to the accident occurred by use of the vehicle which was being driven by the son of the insured. We may, for the said purpose, notice certain decisions covering different categories of the claims. In United India Insurance Co. We may, for the said purpose, notice certain decisions covering different categories of the claims. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006) 4 SCC 404 , this Court considered the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as also 1988 Act and inter alia opined that the insurance company would have no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy which did not cover the gratuitous passenger. 8. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., as reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 , where the Apex Court held as under: 20. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case: (2008) 5 SCC 736 that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under Section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a per son cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. 21. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case: (2008) 5 SCC 736 is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 9. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel has also relied on a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 9. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel has also relied on a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Imkong Toshi Jamir @ Toshi Jamir, as reported in 2006 (i) GLT 379 and a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hemlata Sahu & Ors. Vs. Ramadhar & Anr., as reported in 2000 ACJ 134 . 10. In Hemlata Sahu(supra), it has been held: 10. The Claims Tribunal has laboured under the impression that since it is a comprehensive policy, therefore, the claimants can be compensated on account of death of the insured. This view taken by the learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous and against the decision of the Apex Court. Suffice it to say that Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), categorically laid down that a comprehensive policy means it covers third party risk and it cannot cover unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act It was observed that the special agreement has to be arrived at between the insurance company and the insured and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the insurance company in this behalf. Now, in the present case there is no evidence to show that any separate premium was paid for the purpose of covering risk of the owner himself. Under the comprehensive policy, the owner can only claim reimbursement of damages suffered by the vehicle. This proposition has been accepted by the various courts all over the country including this court also. In this connection, a reference may be made to Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Akkavva v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1988 ACJ 445 (Karnataka). In that case, the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and son of the owner of the goods vehicle was accompanying the goods of his father being carried in the vehicle and the vehicle met with accident due to the negligence of its driver. The question arose whether the son of the owner of the vehicle is to be compensated. The question arose whether the son of the owner of the vehicle is to be compensated. Their Lordships answered in negative that the owner of the vehicle who has the benefit of indemnity is himself not covered and his representative is in no better position unless he be an employee covered by the first proviso to section 95(1)(b). The idea behind this ratio was that the son is in no better position than the owner, i.e., father. In that case, the son of owner of the goods vehicle was accompanying the goods and not as an employee. It was observed that "basically, contract of motor insurance seeks to indemnify the owner of the vehicle against liability arising out of claims of third parties against the insured owner out of the use of the motor vehicle. A contract of insurance which stipulates to ay compensation for the death of the insured person himself cannot be said to be a contract of indemnity. If the owner of the vehicle, who has the benefit of indemnity is himself not covered by the policy, his representative, unless he be an employee covered by the first proviso to section 95(1)(b), is in no better position in relation to the insurer's obligation or the absence of it". Similarly, in the case of Mathew Koshy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1989 ACJ 21 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court took the same view that the right to receive compensation can only be against a person who is bound to compensate due to failure to perform legal obligation; compulsory insurance is to indemnify the owner of the vehicle from the liability, if any, but if the owner himself suffers an injury in an accident, he does not acquire any right to get compensation from the insurance company. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi, 1990 ACJ 390 (Madras), the Madras High Court has held that the owner of the lorry or the insured having himself died in the accident, caused by his own driver and there being no liability on his part or on the part of his legal representatives, towards any third parry, the insurance company's liability does not at all arise. A similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. A similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kantabai, 1991 ACJ 22 (Bombay) and in that case, the vehicle was insured by the partnership firm and one of the partners was travelling in the jeep when the jeep met with an accident due to its rash and negligent driving and it was submitted that individuality of the partners is separate and distinct from the character of the firm and the insurance company should be held liable. The court answered in negative and held that the partner of the firm was the owner of the vehicle and the owner is not covered by the expression 'any person' or third parry' appearing in section 95(1)(b)(i) and, therefore, the liability has not been extended to include the risk to the owner by paying extra premium. It was also held that meaning of comprehensive policy is that the owner can claim reimbursement of the loss or damage to the vehicle or the liability of third party risk but not to himself. Similar view has been taken by Allahabad High Court in the case of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntala Devi, 1991 ACJ 177 (Allahabad) and it has been held that under section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, what is covered is liability of third party and not insured himself. 11. On survey of the aforesaid decisions, it becomes more than apparent that the insurance company only insures the liability arising out of the insured and it does not insure the insured. In the present case, though the policy was a comprehensive policy, but it did not cover the insured and as per section 147(1), it clearly transpires that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation to the claimants of the deceased insured was totally against the provision of law and the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation to the claimants of the deceased insured was totally against the provision of law and the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company being Misc. Appeal No. 774 of 1998, is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal on 23.4.1998 is set aside. 11. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent strenuously argued that since the policy was a comprehensive policy, the Tribunal did not commit any error and as such the impugned judgment and award is not liable to be interfered with. 12. This Court, after considering the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also on scrutiny of the records as made available before this Court, holds that the Insurance Company has got no liability to make payment against the impugned award as passed by the Tribunal inasmuch as the owner of the vehicle for whose negligence the accident occurred can hold anyone else liable making the damages good. Even a comprehensive policy also does not arrest the insurer to shoulder the liability of payment for the damage that the owner of the vehicle suffered in the accident. 13. This view is taken in view of the decision as rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore, reported in 1988 ACJ 270 (SC); where it has been categorically laid down by the Apex Court that a comprehensive policy means it covers the third party risk and it cannot cover unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There had been no accommodation how in Section 147 (corresponding to old Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act) for cover of risk of the owner who had driven the vehicle causing the accident. The risk of the owner can be made covered only by a special arrangement with the insurer paying the premium as per the terms and even in that case also non-payment of the damage would not make the claim filed under Section 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act sustainable in law. The remedy in that event has to be availed through the forum as set up under the Consumers Protection Act. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. The remedy in that event has to be availed through the forum as set up under the Consumers Protection Act. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. As consequence thereof the impugned judgment and award stands set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Statutory deposit be returned to the appellant. Send down the LCRs forthwith.