JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali whereby, the claim application filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected as being not maintainable. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal with a total non-application of mind rejected the claim application as being not maintainable observing that the deceased himself being the owner of the vehicle was driving the same when he expired and thus, the claimants were not entitled to file a claim under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Counsel submits that the insurance policy which was issued by the Insurance Company was B-Policy i.e. a comprehensive insurance policy as the Insurance Company charged excess premium of Rs. 276/- and thus, it has to be presumed that the premium was charged for covering the unlimited personal injury apart from the damage to property and the risk of the third parties. Learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal without adverting to these facts in a mechanical fashion rejected the claim application simply observing that the deceased was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and thus, the claim was not maintainable. Learned Counsel further submits that the burden would on the Insurance Company to show as to under what particular head, the excess premium was charged and thus, the trial of the case has to be conducted and the claim could not have been thrown out without a complete trial. Learned Counsel submits that the view taken by the Tribunal is totally and grossly erroneous and thus, the same deserves to be quashed and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding afresh. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and urges that as the deceased was himself the owner of the vehicle in question, the appellants could not have filed the claim application against the Insurance Company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act because the insurance policy does not cover the liability arising from the death or loss caused to the owner himself. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel or the respondent insurer. Perused the impugned judgment. 5. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel or the respondent insurer. Perused the impugned judgment. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has shown the original insurance policy to this Court during the course of the arguments. The insurance policy is a B-Policy and certain amount of premium in excess appears to have been charged from the insurer. The burden would be on the Insurance Company to show as to under what head such extra premium was charged, if the Tribunal reaches to a conclusion that the extra premium was charged by the Insurance Company for covering the personal injury to the owner then obviously, the claimants would be entitled to claim compensation in the claim application from the Insurance Company. That apart, the claim application was filed impleading two of the other joint co-owners of the tractors in question as respondents, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was totally unjustified in rejecting the claim application without a full dressed trial holding the same to be not maintainable. 6. The appeal thus deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 19.5.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bail is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to restore the claim application and to proceed with the trial of the claim application and to decide the same in accordance with law.Appeal allowed. *******