JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:- 1. Aggrieved of award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu dated 15.09.2014 in File No. 593/Claims titled Kartar Motor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. by virtue whereof appellant-company has been directed to satisfy the award for an amount of Rs. 2,38,709/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, appellant-insurer has preferred the instant appeal assailing the impugned award on the grounds set out in the memo of appeal. Respondent-Kartar Motors a transport company approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for brevity 'Tribunal') with a claim petition seeking compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle on the ground that the Truck bearing registration No. JK02H-1095 belonging to respondent No. 1, while on way from Jammu to Srinagar carrying consignment of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages was hit by the offending truck No. JK02F/885 allegedly plied in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 3-Ravinder Singh. The accident is said to have taken place on 24.05.2004 at Awantipora. It is alleged that as a result of accident the consignment of Coca Cola Beverages loaded in the truck of respondent No. 1 valued at Rs. 2,38,079/- got damaged and destroyed. Respondent No. 1 claimed that it had suffered loss since the goods in transit belonged to Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Gangyal, Jammu who realized the damage claim from respondent No. 1 on the basis of invoice/debit note. The truck was stated to be insured with the appellant-company during the period of occurrence which covered 3rd party loss as well as damages, thereby rendering the appellant liable to pay compensation for the loss occasioned to 3rd party due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 2. The owner and driver of offending vehicle did not choose to context the claim petition. Appellant-insurer filed objections before Tribunal questioning the legal locus of respondent No. 1 to file claim petition. It was further pleaded that since it was a case of collusion between the truck of respondent No. 1 and offending vehicle, insurer-company of the vehicle of respondent No. 1 was a necessary party to the proceedings and non-joinder of the insurer of vehicle of respondent No. 1 rendered the claim petition not maintainable. It was further pleaded that since it was a case of collusion between the truck of respondent No. 1 and offending vehicle, insurer-company of the vehicle of respondent No. 1 was a necessary party to the proceedings and non-joinder of the insurer of vehicle of respondent No. 1 rendered the claim petition not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the driver of offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. Appellant-insurer denied the alleged occurrence, but admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it. 3. Parties joined the following issues:- "1. Whether an accident occurred on 24.05.2004 at Awantipora, Kashmir by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK02F/0885 in the hands of erring driver in which property of the petitioner was damaged; if so to what extent?-OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom?-OPP 3. Whether attorney holder is not competent to file the present claim petition; if so how and what is its effect? OPR-1 4. Whether drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident were not holding valid and effective driving license; if so what is its effect? 5. Whether offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy without permit and fitness etc; if so what is its effect? OPR-1 6. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicle in vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, without RC, route permit and fitness certificate? OPR-1 7. Whether claim petition is hit by doctrine of non-joinder of necessary parties if so who are the necessary parties? OPR-1 7a. Whether no cause of action has accrued to petitioner M/s. Kartar Motors to file the instant claim petition? OPR-1 8. Relief. O.P. Parties." 4. On consideration of the evidence adduced during the inquiry learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of respondent No. 1 and passed the impugned award which is assailed in the instant appeal. 5. OPR-1 7a. Whether no cause of action has accrued to petitioner M/s. Kartar Motors to file the instant claim petition? OPR-1 8. Relief. O.P. Parties." 4. On consideration of the evidence adduced during the inquiry learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of respondent No. 1 and passed the impugned award which is assailed in the instant appeal. 5. In view of the evidence adduced by respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal which has not been rebutted by appellant-insurer, the Tribunal has rightly held that the Truck of respondent No. 1 loaded with consignment of Beverages belonging to Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. was hit in consequence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in the hands of respondent No. 3 which resulted in causing of damage to goods valued at Rs. 2,38,709/-. Admittedly, respondent No. 3, who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, has not appeared in the witness box to rebut the evidence adduced by respondent No. 1 nor proved the theory of collusion set up by appellant-insurer before the Tribunal. Faced with this situation, appellant has limited his appeal only to the issue of incurring of liability for damages caused to the goods of Hindustan Coca Cola beverages Pvt. Ltd. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that under the contract of insurance the appellant was liable to indemnify respondent No. 2 for the claims maintained by owner of the property in respect of damages to any property of the 3rd party and not for the claims maintained by any subrogee or carrier, thus the claim petition preferred by respondent No. 1-Kartar Motors in its capacity as a carrier on account of damages caused to the consignment of goods belonging to Hindustan Coca Cola beverages Pvt. Ltd. was not maintainable within the scope of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the letter of subrogation issued in favour of the carrier clothed him with ownership of the goods thereby rendering appellant-insurer liable to indemnify the loss occasioned to the goods carried by appellant on account of accident caused by the offending vehicle. 8. Heard and considered the matter. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the letter of subrogation issued in favour of the carrier clothed him with ownership of the goods thereby rendering appellant-insurer liable to indemnify the loss occasioned to the goods carried by appellant on account of accident caused by the offending vehicle. 8. Heard and considered the matter. 9. Admittedly, as per the agreement executed between the respondents and Hindustan Coca Cola Company the transporter was liable for loss and damage suffered due to negligence attributed to any act or omission on the part of transporter. The evidence brought on record by the respondents establishes factum of execution of letter of subrogation in terms whereof value of loss suffered by respondents on account of damage to the goods in the accident dated 24.05.2004 has been deducted from freight charges which the company was supposed to pay to the transporter. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was a goods carrier company assigned the consignment by Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. for delivering the same at its destination. The question for consideration is whether the goods belonging to consigner-Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Gangyal while being transported, could be said to be the property of respondent No. 1. Admittedly, the goods have been damaged by the offending vehicle which was insured with the appellant. The million dollar question is whether the consignment of Beverages belonging to Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. can be held to be the property of 3rd party while being transported to destination by carrier. 10. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2004 ACJ 801 Madras High Court, while dealing with the import of Sections 165 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act held that Section 165 only relates to the property of a third party and does not cover the loss to property carried in a public carrier held in trust by the carrier for the owners of the goods. 11. 11. In Jagdish Chand Sharma and etc v. Bachan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 2010 Himachal Pradesh 49 a Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with Section 147(b)(i), 165 Motor Vehicles Act held that when a person sends his goods by a goods vehicle, he enters into a contract with the owner of the goods vehicle and, therefore, the owner of the goods vehicle becomes contractually liable to transport the goods in a safe condition. This is a contractual liability covered under the Carriers Act and not a tortuous liability covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner of the goods cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a third party vis-a-vis the insured. It is a contracting party with the insured and the risk cannot be said to be that of a third party Goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed to be property of a third party. 12. In view of the above dictum of law, it is clear that the respondent No. 1-Kartar Motors cannot be held to be a third party within the scope of Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. Viewed thus, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. The Tribunal could not adjudicate upon the claim for compensation of a person, in respect of the accident arising out of the use of Motor Vehicle involving damage to any property who is not a third party. The claim petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the instant case committed an error in adjudicating upon the matter and passing the impugned award in favour of respondents which cannot be sustained. 14. Award is, accordingly, set aside. 15. Registry to send down the record along with the copy of this order to the learned Tribunal.