JUDGMENT : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. Both these appeals and the Cross Objection filed in F.A. No. 2307 of 2004 were taken up analogously as those matters arose out of the same accident. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these two appeals may be summed up thus: 2.1 On 16th June 1991 at about 12.00 in the night, one Ganeshbhai Gautambhai @ Singaji Patel [Ganeshbhai], who was the owner of jeep No. GJ.09.5637, got an information that Sayabhai Jethabhai Khant [Sayabhai], the driver of the said jeep, took away the jeep without his consent. Ganeshbhai, therefore, started in search of the said jeep by driving a motor cycle being No. GAL 3440 along with one Bhogilal Naryanbahi Patel [Bhogilal] who was travelling as a pillion rider on the said motor cycle. When Ganeshbhai and Bhogilal reached near a small bridge at village Rangpur on the said motor cycle, the aforesaid jeep driven by Sayabhai in a rash and negligent manner came from village Ratanpur and collided with the motor cycle as a result of which both Ganeshbhai [owner of the jeep who at the relevant time was driving the motor cycle] and Bhogilal [pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by Ganeshbhai] suffered serious injuries. 2.2 According to the claim-petition filed by Ganeshbhai, he suffered fracture of right leg, fracture on the left hand and injuries on the head and other parts of the body and was, therefore, admitted in different hospitals as indoor patient for treatment for a prolonged period. According to Ganeshbhai, he was aged 33 years and was earning Rs. 2500/- a month by running a hotel in the name of Ambica Hotel and also a provision cum Kirana Store and he was also earning Rs. 20,000/- from agricultural activity and cattle breeding. According to the claimant, viz. Ganeshbhai, he had spent a sum of Rs. 1, 50,000/- towards the medical treatment. He [Ganeshbhai], therefore, filed MACP No. 518 of 1992 against (1). Sayabhai, the driver of the jeep, (2). Ganeshbhai himself, as the owner of the jeep and (3). The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, as insurer of the said jeep, claiming Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2.3 According to Bhogilal, the pillion rider on motor cycle no. 1, 50,000/- towards the medical treatment. He [Ganeshbhai], therefore, filed MACP No. 518 of 1992 against (1). Sayabhai, the driver of the jeep, (2). Ganeshbhai himself, as the owner of the jeep and (3). The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, as insurer of the said jeep, claiming Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2.3 According to Bhogilal, the pillion rider on motor cycle no. GAL 3440 and the claimant of MACP No. 749 of 1992, he also suffered fracture of knee of the right leg, fracture of femur bone and also sustained injuries on the left hand. He has further contended that he remained as indoor patient for a total period of 41 days in different hospitals. According to him, he was aged 35 years and was earning Rs. 2,000/- a month and also Rs. 20,000/- from agriculture and cattle breeding. He has further stated that he spent Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- towards medical treatment. He [Bhogilal], therefore, filed MACP No. 749 of 1992 against (1). Sayabhai, the driver of the said jeep, (2). Ganeshbhai, the owner of the said jeep, (3). The Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of the jeep, (4). Ganeshbhai, as driver of the motor cycle on which he was travelling as a pillion rider, and (5). Mangaldas Patel, the owner of the motor cycle, claiming Rs. 2,00,000/-. 2.4 The above two claim-petitions were heard together. The driver of the jeep did not contest the claim-petitions and the owner of jeep, who is the claimant of MACP NO. 518 of 1992 also did not file any written statement opposing the claim-petition but it was the insurer of the jeep, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which contested both the claim petitions by filing Written Statement thereby asserting negligence on the part of the Ganeshbhai as the driver of the motor cycle. The Insurance Company also disputed the other claim of the claimant and at the same time raised a pure question of law as to the maintainability of MACP No. 518 of 1992 on the ground that the claimant Ganeshbhai himself being the owner of the jeep, cannot maintain any application for compensation against himself, of which the Insurance Company is merely the insurer. In other words, according to the Insurance Company, the owner having claimed compensation against himself in the capacity of a third party who is himself the insured, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount. In other words, according to the Insurance Company, the owner having claimed compensation against himself in the capacity of a third party who is himself the insured, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount. 2.5 The learned Tribunal below, by the common award impugned herein held that Ganeshbhai, the driver of the motor cycle, was negligent to the extent of 40% in causing the accident. The Tribunal further held that so far as MACP No. 518 of 1992 [filed by Ganeshbhai, the owner of the jeep] is concerned, he is not a third party, yet, the Insurance Company was held to be liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal, considering the monthly income of Ganeshbhai to be Rs. 2500/-, his physical disability at 40%, and applying a multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- under the head of future loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- towards actual loss of income, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 3000/- towards special diet and Rs. 3000/- towards attendant charges, arrived at the figure of Rs. 3,36,000/- and after deducting 40% towards contributory negligence of the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,01,600/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment and also held that the Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 2.6 So far as MACP No. 749 of 1992 filed by Bhogilal [pillion rider on the motor cycle] is concerned, the Tribunal, considering monthly income as Rs. 2000/-, permanent disability at 16% and applying a multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 57,600/- as future loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 16,000/- towards actual loss of income, Rs. 40,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 5000/- towards transportation, Rs. 15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 3000/- towards special diet and Rs. 2400/- for attendant charges, arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,39,000/- as compensation and by deducting 40% negligence of the motor cycle driver, held that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 83,400/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment and also held that the insurer of the jeep, the driver and the owner were jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 83,400/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment and also held that the insurer of the jeep, the driver and the owner were jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. The Tribunal held that the owner, driver and the insurer of the motor cycle were not made parties and on that wrong assumption reduced 40% of the compensation. However, the owner and the driver of the motor cycle were parties although the insurer of the motor cycle was not made a party. 2.7 Being dissatisfied, the Insurer of the jeep has preferred these two First Appeals, but Bhogilal has not preferred any appeal or Cross Objection. 2.8 Ganeshbhai, the owner of the jeep and the claimant of MACP No.518 of 1992 has filed the Cross Objection for enhancement of the compensation. Though the Cross Objection has been filed in the year 2010, it appears that the same was not listed before the Court for admission. However, since the First Appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the selfsame award passed by the Tribunal is admitted, I admit the Cross Objection and, as stated hereinabove, the same is also heard analogously. 3. Mr. Dwivedi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in F.A. No. 2307 of 2004 has strenuously contended before this Court that the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in passing the direction for payment of the amount in MACP No. 518 of 1992 although the Tribunal specifically came to the conclusion that Ganeshbhai, the claimant, was not a third party, and thus, there was no justification for directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount. Mr. Dwivedi also disputed the amount of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have held that from the evidence on record, it appears that Ganeshbhai was wholly negligent in causing the accident as the jeep was on the correct side of the road when the accident occurred. 3.1 So far as F.A. No. 2308 of 2004 arising from MACP No. 749 of 1992 filed by Bhogilal, the pillion rider, is concerned, Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the driver of the motor cycle being wholly negligent, the claimant was not entitled to get any compensation from the insurer of the jeep. 3.2 Mr. Dwivedi, therefore, prays for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal in both the claim-petitions. 4. Dwivedi submitted that the driver of the motor cycle being wholly negligent, the claimant was not entitled to get any compensation from the insurer of the jeep. 3.2 Mr. Dwivedi, therefore, prays for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal in both the claim-petitions. 4. Mr. Sejpal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Munshi for the owner of the jeep and the Cross-Objector, viz. Ganeshbhai, strenuously contended before this Court that the findings of the Tribunal that Ganeshbhai was not a third party was, on the face of it, illegal. According to him, indisputably his client was riding on a different vehicle, and as driver of the said vehicle, he was definitely a third-party in respect of the insurer of the jeep. According to him, the owner of the vehicle who has taken the insurance policy is also entitled to compensation in respect of an accident caused by his own vehicle if due to the negligence of his driver he has sustained injuries. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Therefore, the first question that arises for determination in F.A. No. 2307 of 2004 is whether Ganeshbhai was entitled to claim compensation against his own insurer as a third party since he was not an occupant of his own jeep at the relevant time, but was injured in an accident in the capacity of driver of a different vehicle. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and others, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 , it appears that it is now a settled law that in a case where compensation is claimed for the death or injury of the owner of the vehicle who is insured, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. In the above decision, the Supreme Court took note of all the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and came to the conclusion that the liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act being cast on the owner of the vehicle, if the heirs of the owner are the claimants, they cannot maintain such an application against the owner. 7. 7. It appears that in the case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 , it was pointed out that an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insurer 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 to a third-party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. According to the Supreme Court, Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. According to the Supreme Court, where the policy covered any risk or injury of the owner himself by payment of premium for that purpose, in that case, the owner is entitled to get compensation for injury caused to him; otherwise, in respect of third-party-insurance, an owner cannot claim insurance against himself unless personal accident- insurance has been taken out. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Vijayagauri Kalidas and others, reported in 1999 (2) GLR 1047 has lost its significance in this case. 8. In the case before me, there is no dispute that no such personal coverage has been included in the policy covering the owner of the jeep. 9. Such being the position, even though the owner of the jeep sustained injury while driving the scooter, his claim of compensation is really against himself as the owner of the jeep and under Section 147 of the Act, the Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse that amount. 10. I, therefore, find that the claim filed by Ganeshbhai against himself in the capacity of a third-party is not maintainable and the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in directing payment of the amount of compensation against himself to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 11. In view of my above finding, the question of negligence or amount of compensation becomes irrelevant. However, on the basis of evidence on record, I do not find any reason to disturb such finding of negligence and the income of the owner in this appeal being First Appeal No.2307 of 2004. 12. 11. In view of my above finding, the question of negligence or amount of compensation becomes irrelevant. However, on the basis of evidence on record, I do not find any reason to disturb such finding of negligence and the income of the owner in this appeal being First Appeal No.2307 of 2004. 12. So far as the other appeal being F.A. No. 2308 of 2004 at the instance of the Insurance Company against the pillion rider of the scooter is concerned, namely, Bhogilal, it appears that he has not preferred any appeal or Cross Objection against refusal of his demand against the owner and the driver of the motor cycle and thus, such question has attained finality. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the jeep was negligent to the extent of 60% since the driver of the jeep did not come forward to deny the allegation of negligence and, at the same time, it was head-on-collision. The assessment of compensation was also quite reasonable being Rs. 83,400/- after deducting 40% negligence of the motor cycle driver. Since the claimant has not filed any separate appeal or Cross Objection, I have not taken into consideration the question of enhancement of compensation in this appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Company. 13. In the result, F.A. No. 2307 of 2004 is allowed and the award passed in MACP No. 518 of 1992 qua the appellant Insurance Company is quashed and set aside. 13.1 Consequently, Cross Objection No. 112 of 2010 filed by Ganeshbhai deserves to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed as in this Cross-Objection in connection with the appeal of the Insurance Company, there is no scope of enhancing the amount of compensation against the driver of the jeep as the Cross Objector has not filed any separate appeal alleging 100% negligence against his driver. 13.2 For the reasons recorded above, F.A. No. 2308 of 2004 is dismissed. 13.3 In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs in all the above three matters.