JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the common judgment & award dated 31.12.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Mehsana in MACP No. 838 of 2009. 2. The short facts of case are that appellant was insurer of Motorcycle No. GJ-08-K-2769. Deceased Bharatbhai Arvindbhai Barot was driving said motorcycle at time of accident on 29.9.2009 which met with an accident. The said claim petition has been filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) by legal heirs of said deceased Bharatbhai against owner & insurance company of said motorcycle. The appellant had appeared in said claim petition and contested claim on the grounds as set out in its written statement. After hearing parties, learned Tribunal has found deceased Bharatbhai solely negligent for causing accident in question but awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant - legal heir of deceased Bharatbhai on ground that appellant insurance company has received additional premium of Rs.50/- to cover Personal Accident (PA) risk of Owner-Driver and as deceased Bharatbhai was driving said insured motorcycle, then his legal heir is entitled to receive at least Rs.1,00,000/- under policy issued by appellant. 3. The appellant has taken out this appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment & award passed by learned Tribunal, solely on ground that learned Tribunal has committed a gross jurisdictional error in directing appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant under cover of PA to Owner-Driver. Learned Advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat appearing on behalf of appellant insurance company has strenuously argued that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated provisions of the Act and overlooked object & reasons of Act for which it is enacted. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that as per Chapter - XI & XII of the Act, only cases related to Third Party can be adjudicated by Tribunal in motor accident claim petition but when admittedly claim made either by owner of vehicle or a person claiming through owner having stepped into shoe of owner of vehicle, then learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide lis between such person vis-a-vis. insurance company. insurance company. He has submitted that deceased Bharatbhai was driving insured motorcycle and met with an accident due to his own wrong then naturally, person cannot get compensation for his own wrong and considering facts of present case, deceased Bharatbhai stepped into shoe of original owner namely Mr. Manuji Vanaji Vaghela. Hence, claim for death of deceased Bharatbhai cannot be considered as claim of Third Party. He has further submitted that as such learned Tribunal could not have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under PA to Owner-Driver cover given in policy that too by not properly appreciating terms of insurance policy more particularly Section-III of policy which covers the risk of Personal Accident to Owner-Driver wherein condition is clear and unambiguous. Learned Tribunal ought to have referred/relied upon entire terms of policy rather referring only part of it. He has relied upon said Section-III of policy which is set out in grounds of appeal itself. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat has relied upon various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Ningama Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in, (2009) 13 SCC 710 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors. reported in, (2008) 5 SCC 736 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harchand Raichandan Lal, reported in, (2004) 8 SCC 644 , National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, reported in, (2007) 3 SCC 700 and reported decision of this Court in a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Heirs and L.Rs. Of Hiteshbhai Sureshbhai Patel and ors., reported in, 2011 (2) GLR 1003 and recent decision dated 13.7.2016 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1353 of 2015 in a case of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepakbhai Bhikhabhai Patel. The said decisions are considered in later portion of this judgment. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat has argued that PA cover given under policy only cover the risk of registered owner of vehicle being insured named in the policy and any other person cannot entitle himself to receive such Personal Accident cover as terms of contract is very clear. He has emphasized mainly on following terms of contract (policy) of said Section-III which reads as under, "This cover is subject to, (a) Owner-Driver must be registered owner of the insured vehicle insured herein. (b) Owner - Driver is the insured named in the policy. He has emphasized mainly on following terms of contract (policy) of said Section-III which reads as under, "This cover is subject to, (a) Owner-Driver must be registered owner of the insured vehicle insured herein. (b) Owner - Driver is the insured named in the policy. (c) Owner - Driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of Accident." He has therefore argued that deceased Bharatbhai was neither a registered owner nor insured named in the policy then said cover of Personal Accident to Owner-Driver is not available to deceased Bharatbhai and learned Tribunal has completely overlooked terms & conditions of policy in question. According to him, learned Tribunal has fallen in error by not examining terms of policy in its real sense and committed a gross error by awarding compensation relying upon said PA cover. Lastly, he has submitted that learned Tribunal ought to not to have entertained said claim petition having no jurisdiction to entertain claim of Owner or a Person claiming through Owner of vehicle. He has requested this Court to allow appeal. 6. Per Contra, Mr. Pravin P. Panchal, learned advocate appearing for original claimant-respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no error committed by learned Tribunal while awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the claimant. As per his submission, risk of deceased Bharatbhai was in fact covered under policy in question and accordingly, learned Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation. He has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors. reported in, (2008) 5 SCC 736 . He has, therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the present appeal. 7. Though served, none has appeared for respondent No. 2-owner of vehicle. 8. At the joint request of learned Advocates of both sides, this appeal is taken up for final hearing today. Heard learned Advocates for both the sides and has gone through the impugned judgment as well as documents supplied by learned Advocates for the parties and also considered decisions cited by learned advocates. 9. 8. At the joint request of learned Advocates of both sides, this appeal is taken up for final hearing today. Heard learned Advocates for both the sides and has gone through the impugned judgment as well as documents supplied by learned Advocates for the parties and also considered decisions cited by learned advocates. 9. The short but an interesting question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal, as to whether learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claim made either by Owner or a person claiming through Owner of Vehicle?, and secondly in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the claimant is entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- under Personal Accident cover available to Owner-Driver in policy in question? 10. Indisputably, deceased Bharatbhai was driving motorcycle insured with the appellant insurance company at the time of accident and due to his sole negligence, accident in question had taken place and he succumbed to injuries. After considering evidence made available on record, learned Tribunal has partly allowed claim petition filed by legal heir of deceased Bharatbhai by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under Personal Accident cover available to Owner-Driver under policy as owner-insured had paid an additional premium of Rs.50/- to get said cover under policy. Learned Tribunal has directed appellant insurance company to pay said compensation. It is required to be observed that though claim petition is filed by the claimant u/s. 163A of the Act, learned Tribunal having relied upon decision of Hon'ble Apex court in a case of Ningama (supra) and this Court in a case of Hiteshbhai Sureshbhai Patel (supra) has not awarded any other compensation. 11. To appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, relevant provisions of the Act are required to be considered. The compulsory insurance to protect interest of road accident victim is envisaged under Chapter-XI of the Act whose heading itself is clear i.e. "INSURANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES AGAINST THIRD PARTY RISKS". Section 146 of the Act speaks for necessity for insurance against thirty party risks and Section 147 the Act speaks for requirements of policies and limits of liability. The compulsory insurance to protect interest of road accident victim is envisaged under Chapter-XI of the Act whose heading itself is clear i.e. "INSURANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES AGAINST THIRD PARTY RISKS". Section 146 of the Act speaks for necessity for insurance against thirty party risks and Section 147 the Act speaks for requirements of policies and limits of liability. The Tribunal is constituted as per Section 165 of the Act which is empowered to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. The award of claims Tribunal is passed as per Section 168 of the Act wherein it may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. Thus, in view of said provisions of Act, it is made clear that learned Tribunal is constituted and empowered to adjudicate claim of Third Party against driver/owner/insurer as the case may be. However, there is no provision under the Act which empower the Tribunal to adjudicate claim of owner and or a person claiming through owner against insurer. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) held as under: "17. Section 149 is part of Chapter XI which is titled "insurance of Motor Vehicles against third Parties". A significant factor which needs to be noticed is that there is no contractual relation between the insurance company and the third party. The liabilities and the obligations relatable to third parties are created only by fiction of Section s 147 and 149 of the Act. 18. It is also to be noted that the terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and there is no scope for adding or subtracting something. However liberally the policy may be construed, such liberalism cannot be extended to permit substitution of words which are not intended. (See United India Insurance Co. 18. It is also to be noted that the terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and there is no scope for adding or subtracting something. However liberally the policy may be construed, such liberalism cannot be extended to permit substitution of words which are not intended. (See United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand rai Chandan Lal and Polymat India (P) Ltd. v. National insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 21. Where the claim relates to own damage claims, it cannot be adjudicated by the insurance company. But it has to be decided by an other forum i.e. forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 (in short the 'cp Act'). Before the Tribunal, there were essentially three parties i.e. the insurer, insured and the claimants. On the contrary, before the consumer forums there were two parties i.e. owner of the vehicle and the insurer. The claimant does not come in to the picture. Therefore, these are cases where there is no third party involved. 22. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in such cases the logic i.e. let the insurer pay and recover from the insured company does not apply. 23. As noted above, there is no contractual relation between the third party and the insurer. Because of the statutory intervention in terms of Section 149, the same becomes operative in essence and Section 149 provides complete insulation. 24. In the background of the statutory provisions, one thing is crystal clear i.e. the statute is beneficial one qua the third party. But that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The logic of fake license has to be considered differently in respect of third party and in respect of own damage claim." In view of the provisions of the Act and ratio laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in the above referred decision, the claim petition preferred either by Owner of vehicle and or a person claiming through him being stepped into shoe of owner is not maintainable under provisions of the Act. Thus, in view of said facts and settled legal position of law, the claim petition preferred by present respondent No. 1-original claimant is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and learned Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in entertaining the claim petition and making the award, as such. 13. Thus, in view of said facts and settled legal position of law, the claim petition preferred by present respondent No. 1-original claimant is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and learned Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in entertaining the claim petition and making the award, as such. 13. The said view is fortified by recent judgment delivered by this Court in a case of Deepakbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (supra) which is referred by learned Advocate Mr. Shelat during course of his argument wherein it has been observed as under: "8. Taking into consideration the rival submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides, ratio laid down in the above referred decisions by the Honorable Apex Court in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, indisputably, the claimant himself stands as registered owner and he himself was driving the offending vehicle as well as he himself has preferred the claim petition against his own insurance company claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him and resultant damages suffered by him. Indisputably, the claimant is not the third party. He is insured and the respondent insurance company is the insurer. Chapter XI of the Act makes the provision for insurance of the motor vehicle against the third party risk and the statute has made it compulsory for securing the risk of the third party and in the case on hand, if the injury or damage is suffered by the third party, then the third party can claim and maintain the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the said Chapter. 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in the above referred decisions, the claim petition preferred by the present respondent-original claimant is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in entertaining the claim petition and making the award, as such. 10. So far as the argument of Mr. 10. So far as the argument of Mr. Joshi as regards to passing the award to the extent of contractual insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, the said liability arises between parties by virtue of the contract and in case of breach of contract, party to the contract can avail legal remedy either before the competent civil court or before the consumer forum as may be advised, but surely for breach of such contract, he cannot maintain the claim petition before the learned Tribunal constituted under the Act." 14. The controversy would not rest here because according to Mr. Shelat, claimant is not at all entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- even by approaching civil court or consumer forum because personal accident risk of deceased Bharatbhai who was driving motorcycle was, in fact, not covered under policy in question. According to him, learned Tribunal has wrongly granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant being Personal Accident cover available to Owner-Driver given under policy in question. Per Contra, Mr. Panchal has argued that claimant is entitled to get PA cover under policy. As both the sides advanced their respective arguments on this issue and requested the Court to decide it in accordance with law then in peculiar facts and circumstances of case, this Court has deemed it fit to examine the issue and given its anxious thoughts on the contentions raised by learned advocates for the parties. 15. Learned Tribunal has observed that as insurance company has charged additional premium to cover personal accident risk of Owner-Driver to extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and as deceased Bharatbhai being driver of insured motorcycle, then claimant being legal heir of deceased Bharatbhai is entitled to receive said amount from appellant insurance company. Learned Tribunal has, in fact, referred Section-III of policy in question in the impugned judgment but there is a fallacy on the part of learned Tribunal by observing that in view of said cover, insurance company is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in a case of the death of driver and/or owner of insured vehicle by use of vehicle. Learned Tribunal has misread terms of contract being policy as it has not considered entire Section-III of policy in question which ultimately resulted into grave error on the part of learned Tribunal in awarding compensation to claimant. The relevant portion of Section - III of policy is heavily relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Learned Tribunal has misread terms of contract being policy as it has not considered entire Section-III of policy in question which ultimately resulted into grave error on the part of learned Tribunal in awarding compensation to claimant. The relevant portion of Section - III of policy is heavily relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Shelat which clearly suggests that this cover is subject to (a) Owner - Driver must be registered owner of the insured vehicle insured herein; (b) Owner - Driver is the insured named in the policy, then unless and until both these conditions of contract fulfilled, no cover under personal accident is available to any other person. Admittedly, deceased Bharatbhai was neither registered owner of insured vehicle nor the insured named in the policy then his legal heir being claimant is not entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- under PA cover given to Owner-Driver. 16. Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal has heavily relied upon decision of Rajni Devi (supra) to support impugned judgment of learned Tribunal but facts of case before Hon'ble Apex Court were different then the case on hand. Before Hon'ble Apex Court, it was claim made by owner of vehicle - insured which is not the case on hand. Thus, said decision is not at all helpful to claimant rather runs counter to his claim as certain observations which are made in the said judgment support submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Shelat for the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Rajni Devi (supra) observed as under: "6. 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." 17. It is by now well settled legal position as held in a case of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and Anr., reported in AIR 1966 SC 1644 , the Constitution Bench has observed as under: "11. It is by now well settled legal position as held in a case of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and Anr., reported in AIR 1966 SC 1644 , the Constitution Bench has observed as under: "11. ......In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves." Again the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with said aspect in a case of Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (supra) wherein it is held as under: "14. The terms of the contract has to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous." 18. In this view of the matter, learned Tribunal cannot go beyond terms of contract. Thus, in view of above stated reasons, learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant being Personal Accident cover to Owner-Driver under policy. 19. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Mehsana in MACP No. 838 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. If any amount is deposited by the appellant insurance company either before the registry of this Court or before the learned Tribunal, the same shall be refunded to the insurance company forthwith. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the lower court forthwith. No order as to costs. 20. In view of the above order, the Civil Application does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.