JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Both these appeals have arisen out of the judgments, which have been rendered by the Tribunal while dealing with the same accident from the same vehicle, hence are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. In brief, the facts are that Mr. Govind Prasad was travelling from Haldwani to Berinag from his own Alto car bearing no. UK05-6667 on 9.12.2012 at 5.25 PM. Mr. Prasad himself was driving the vehicle. His wife Smt. Suman Nainwal was travelling in it as a co-passenger. Unfortunately, the car skidded from the road and fell down in a deep gorge. Consequently, Mr. Govind Prasad died and Smt. Suman Nainwal suffered injuries. Car was insured with the New India Assurance Company when the accident had occurred. 3. MACP No. 10/2013 was launched by Smt. Suman Nainwal along with her two children against the insurance company claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,85,000/-, but the learned Tribunal has accepted the petition for the amount of Rs. 45,85,272/-. 4. Another MACP No. 11/2013 was instituted by Smt. Suman Nainwal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,573/- for her own injuries and the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,00,540/-. 5. I have heard both these appeals on merits and perused the impugned judgments. 6. It is evidently clear that the accident is not covered under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act because it contemplates the insurance of motor vehicles against the third party risks. Although the claim petitions were instituted claiming compensation in the same chapter under Section 163A/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the learned Trial Judge has converted the same on the basis of several precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court as if the same were filed under Section 165/166 of the Act, which envisage the constitution of the Claims Tribunals as well as the nature of the accident, wherein the compensation can be claimed. Section 166 has been enacted enabling the legal heirs or the injured persons to move an application claiming compensation for all the accidents, which have been adumbrated under Section 165 of this chapter and in Section 165, the words used are “………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”. It does not classify the kinds and the manners of accidents, but to my mind, this provision covers every accident. So, as regards the conversion and treating the petitions under Section 166 is concerned, there may not be any infirmity in the Court’s finding, but at the same time, it is indispensable to have a look upon the insurance policy cover in order to find out that what premium has/had been paid to the insurance company covering the particular scores. 7. In the case in hand, this insurance cover which was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal, the copy whereof has also been presented by the insurance company in the present appeal, reveals that this vehicle was owned by the deceased Mr. Govind Prasad. It covers the date and time of the accident, but Rs. 1580/- was paid as premium for damage of the own vehicle, viz. destroying either wholly or any part of the vehicle itself. The other premium Rs. 834/- was paid to the insurance company towards the third party. Besides, these two scores, no premium of any kind, viz. covering the owner-cum-driver or the driver or the co-passengers sitting in the vehicle has been paid. So, in this eventuality, I think it is not possible to hold the insurance company to pay any compensation or award either to the injured co-passenger or for the death of the owner-cum-driver. 8. In view of what has been set forth above, I allow both these appeals and set aside the impugned awards. 9. Registry shall remit the compulsory statutory amount, along with the interest which it has earned, to the Tribunal concerned in both the appeals. Tribunal shall return the money deposited by the appellant insurance company along with the interest it has earned. 10. Let the lower court records be sent back.