JUDGMENT : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The Insurance Company is the appellant. It is aggrieved by an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durgapur dated 8th September, 2003 ordering it to pay Rs. 50,000 Section 140 compensation with 9% p.a. interest. 2. Notice of appeal was duly served on the claimants. Records reveal that they entered appearance through one Mr Subrata Bhattacharya, Advocate. The appeal was taken up for hearing Yesterday. Since Mr. Bhattacharya was absent, hearing was adjourned for giving the claimants another opportunity of contesting the appeal. For reasons known to him, Mr. Bhattacharya is absent today was well. We do not find any reason to adjourn the hearing again. 3. The parents and an unmarried sister of one Shib Shankar Ghosal filed an application before the Claims Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 27th August, 2001. Their case was this:- "Shib Shankar (26) was a businessman. His motorcycle No. WB-40E-4561 was covered by a valid policy issued by the Insurance Company. Riding the motorcycle he was coming from Bolpur towards Durgapur on 24th December, 2000 when a rashly and negligently driven truck coming from the opposite direction dashed the motorcycle. He was seriously injured in the accident and died in hospital." 4. The driver, the owner and the insurer of the truck were not impleaded as parties. The claimants prayed for leave to file an appropriate case claiming fault liability compensation. The Insurance Company contested the case by filing a written statement. It took the specific plea that since the policy did not cover the victims life qua the owner of the motorcycle, his death in the accident did not make it liable to pay his legal representatives any compensation. 5. In proof of the case the victim's mother (the first claimant) testified as PW1. Her testimony is that while the victim was returning home riding his motorcycle, a truck dashed him; and that he was killed in the accident. In cross-examination she said that she did not collect the number of the offending truck; and that because of that the owner and the insurer of the truck were not impleaded as parties to the case. 6. The Insurance Company examined an officer of it as OPW1. He produced the policy that was in force in relation to the use of the motorcycle. 6. The Insurance Company examined an officer of it as OPW1. He produced the policy that was in force in relation to the use of the motorcycle. It was marked Ex A. OPW1 testified that under the policy the Insurance Company was not liable for the owner's death or injury. In cross-examination he said, "P.A. is included in item No. B." He, however, denied the suggestion that the claimants were entitled to claim the victim's personal accident coverage. 7. The Claims Tribunal held as follows:- "I have already discussed it is not disputed in this case that there is an insurance of the vehicle. Therefore, the scope remains before the Insurance Company for raising any statutory defence or defences based on the policy at the time of filing award. This is the case under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. The question that arises in a case like this nature whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation-to the dependents of the deceased or not. Considering the scope given under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, I am in view the O.P. at this stage cannot challenge the coverage of the Policy which is produced on behalf of the petitioner." 8. Mr. Das appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that since the policy did not cover a liability for the owner's personal accident, the Section 140 claim was just not maintainable. He has relied on Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Am., 2005 A.C.J. 1, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha & Ors., 2007 A.C.J. 818 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabha Devi & Ors., 2013 A.C.J. 1382. 9. In Dhanraj the Supreme Court considered the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 A.C.J. 121 and said as follows:- "9. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 A.C.J. 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." In Dhanraj the Supreme Court stated the following principle:- "8. 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 Dhanraj the Supreme Court stated the following principle:- "8. 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." 10. In Dhanraj, Dhanraj was the owner and driver of the motor vehicle in the course of whose use an accident happened in which he and the other persons travelling in the vehicle were injured. The question was whether Dhanraj was entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company whose insurance policy was in force in relation to the use of the vehicle. 11. The Supreme Court rejected Dhanraj's claim referring to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the principles stated in Sunita Rathi, and finding that the policy did not cove and liability for injury to the owner himself. The Supreme Court said, "An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case there is no such insurance." 12. In jhuma Saha, the owner of the motor vehicle, while trying to save a goat running across the road, met with an accident in which he was injured. The injured owner ultimately died. A fault liability claim case was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The question that arose was whether the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal was confined only "to a third party claim." 13. The Supreme Court rejected jhuma's claim finding that no additional premium was paid to cover a liability for the personal accident of the owner of the vehicle in the course of the use thereof, and holding that in such a case as that the provisions of Section 147(l)(b) would cover only a third party risk. The Supreme Court quoted paras 8 and 10 from Dhanraj report at 2005 A.C.J. 1 14. In Jhuma Saha the Supreme Court said as follows:- "11. The Supreme Court quoted paras 8 and 10 from Dhanraj report at 2005 A.C.J. 1 14. In Jhuma Saha the Supreme Court said as follows:- "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 Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify insured, therefore, does not arise." 15. In Prabha Devi, the owner of the vehicle travelling in it was killed in an accident. His legal heirs filed a fault liability claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was claimed that the vehicle was being driven by another person, not by the deceased owner. The Supreme Court finding that the insurance policy did not cover a liability for injury to the owner himself rejected the claim referring to the ratios of Sunita Rathi and Dhanraj. 16. Hence, the principles are:- If a vehicle owner is injured or killed in an accident arising out of its use, a claim against the insurer can be maintained under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only if the policy in force in relation to the use of the vehicle proves that the owner had taken a personal accident insurance coverage for himself; and in such a case the Claims Tribunal can grant only the amount payable under the personal accident coverage contract, not any compensation. 17. In this case, the policy that was in force in relation to the use of the victim's motorcycle was proved by OPW1. It is a comprehensive policy and premium was paid only for own damage basic and liability to public risk. With the liability to public risk personal accident coverage of the insured was to be included, if premium for the purpose was paid. The policy shows that no premium was paid for personal accident. 18. It is a comprehensive policy and premium was paid only for own damage basic and liability to public risk. With the liability to public risk personal accident coverage of the insured was to be included, if premium for the purpose was paid. The policy shows that no premium was paid for personal accident. 18. The Claims Tribunal was wrong, first, in saying that the Insurance Company was not entitled to raise the maintainability issue at the Section 140 claim stage; and secondly, in holding that at the Section 140 stage the liability of the Insurance Company was to be determined ascertaining only whether at the date of the accident in which the victim was killed there was in force an insurance policy issued by the Insurance Company in relation to the use of the motorcycle. 19. The maintainability question was to be decided by the Claims Tribunal before deciding any other issue. It is not the law that a Section 140 claim is to be allowed even if the Claims Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim, or the policy concerned does not create any liability of the Insurance Company to pay any compensation. When the vehicle owner is the victim of the accident arising out of the use of the vehicle, the question of compensation cannot arise. A Section 140 claim is just not maintainable. 20. Here the Insurance Company raised the plea in its written statement and produced and proved the policy in proof of its plea. The policy clearly proved that the victim had not taken any personal accident coverage. This being the position, the Insurance Company could not and actually did not incur any liability to pay anything. The claim application was not maintainable. 21. For these reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the award of the Claims Tribunal and dismiss the Section 140 claim application filed by the claimants. The Registrar General is directed to pay the Insurance Company the whole of the deposit with accrued interest, within four weeks from the date the records are sent to the department. No costs. Certified xerox.