JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 21st April, 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in MACP No. 646 of 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.1.2010, deceased Dalsukhbhai Naranbhai Parmar by driving motorcycle No.GJ4AL2611 belonging to respondent No.7original opponent No.1Rameshbhai R. Parmar was going towards Ranghola and when reached near Bhavnath Temple, one unknown four-wheeler Tempo came from opposite side in full speed and with full lights on, dazzled the eyes of the deceased and as a result, the deceased lost control of the motorcycle and dashed with a road side stone. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries on 4.9.2010. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith interest under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short). 3. Upon hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal has vide above mentioned impugned judgment and award came to conclusion that the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Act. However, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants on the ground that the Insurance company had received additional premium to cover Personal Accident (PA) risk of owner-driver. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the aforesaid appeal before this Court. 5. Heard Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. Though served, none appears for the respondents. Be that as it may, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today. 6. Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants under cover of PA to owner-driver. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated provisions of the Act. The deceased was driving insured motorcycle and met with an accident due to his own wrong and therefore, a person cannot get compensation for his own wrong and as such the deceased stepped into the shoe of original owner-respondent No.7. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated provisions of the Act. The deceased was driving insured motorcycle and met with an accident due to his own wrong and therefore, a person cannot get compensation for his own wrong and as such the deceased stepped into the shoe of original owner-respondent No.7. Therefore, the claim of the deceased cannot be considered as claim of third party. 7. Mr. Mazmudar has further argued that PA cover given under policy only covers the risk of registered owner of vehicle being insured named in the policy and other person cannot receive PA cover as terms of the contract are very clear. In the present case, the deceased was neither a registered owner nor insured named in the policy, therefore, the cover of PA to owner-driver is not available to the deceased. To buttress his aforesaid contention, Mr. Mazmudar has relied upon following decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court: (i) Ningama V/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 ; (ii) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Rajni Devi & Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 73; (iii) United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Harchand Raichandan Lal, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 644 ; (iv) National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Laxmi Narain Dhut, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 700 ; (v) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Heirs and L.Rs. Of Hiteshbhai Sureshbhai Patel and ors, reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1003 ; and (vi) 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 V/s Deepakbhai Bhikhabhai Patel. 8. Having heard Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and other materials made available to this Court, it appears that the facts of the present case is akin to the facts of the case involved in First Appeal No.735 of 2016 decided by this Court on 20.7.2016. Here-in-also, a short question arises for consideration of this Court, as to whether the learned Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claim preferred by owner or a person claiming through owner of vehicle and whether the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under PA cover to the claimants. 9. Here-in-also, a short question arises for consideration of this Court, as to whether the learned Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claim preferred by owner or a person claiming through owner of vehicle and whether the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under PA cover to the claimants. 9. Indisputably, the deceased was driving motorcycle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and due to his sole negligence, accident in question occurred and he succumbed to his injuries. To appreciate the present dispute involved in this appeal in its proper perspective, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. 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 third 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 empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate claim of owner and or a person claiming through owner against insurer. 10. The Honble 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". 10. The Honble 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 Sections 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. Ltd. v. Harchand rai Chandan Lai 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. 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 above provisions of the Act and ratio laid down by the Honourable 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 respondents is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and the learned Tribunal has erred in entertaining the claim petition and making the award as such. 11. The said view is fortified by recent judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Deepakbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (supra) which is referred by the Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant during the 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 Honourable 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. 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable 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. 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. 12. The 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 being driver of insured motorcycle, then claimants being legal heir of deceased are entitled to receive said amount from appellant-insurance company. There is a fallacy on the part of learned Tribunal by observing as such. It appears that the 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 error on the part of learned Tribunal in awarding compensation to claimant. Section-III of the policy clearly suggests that this cover is subject to (a) owner-driver must be registered owner of the insured vehicle insured herein and (b) owner-driver is the insured named in the policy. Unless and until both these conditions of contract are fulfilled, no cover under personal accident is available to any other person. Admittedly, deceased was neither registered owner of insured vehicle nor the insured named in the policy, therefore, his legal heirs being claimants are not entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- under PA cover given to owner-driver. 13. 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. 13. 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 Honble 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. 14. In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of contract. Thus, in view of above stated reasons, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- to claimants being Personal Accident cover to owner-driver under policy. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award dated 21st April, 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in MACP No. 646 of 2010 is hereby 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 learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. No order as to costs.