JUDGMENT : The appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has challenged the legality of the award dated 26-06-2014, passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Additional MACT at Hassan, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1, M/s. Rao & Brothers, and granted a compensation of Rs.75,000/- in its favour, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the claimant, the respondent No.1, M/s. Rao & Brothers, were engaged in the business of transporting goods. According to the respondent-claimant, on 29-04-2010 they were transporting a 15 KVA DG set in a Canter Tempo, bearing Reg. No. KA-19-B-5947. Around 3.30 a.m., when the said Tempo reached near the power grid of Shanthigrama, on NH-48, suddenly a KSRTC Bus, bearing Reg. No. KA-18-F-265, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came in a high speed, and dashed against the Canter Tempo from the back. Due to the said accident, the 15 KVA DG set was badly damaged. Since the respondent-claimant paid Rs.75,000/- for getting the DG set repaired, it filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short), before the learned Tribunal. While filing its objection, the Insurance Company, the appellant, raised a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the petition. According to the Insurance Company, although the claim petition could be filed by the owner of a property which has been damaged in an accident, the said claim petition could not be filed by the transporter. Since the claimant-respondent was not the owner of the DG set, but was merely the transporter, the claim petition was not maintainable. Still, in order to prove its case, the claimant-respondent examined two witnesses and submitted fourteen documents. Meanwhile, the Insurance Company examined a single witness and submitted a single document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has passed the award, in the aforementioned terms. Hence the present appeal by the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that under Section 166 of the Act, it is only the owner of the damaged property who is entitled to file a claim petition. Hence the present appeal by the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that under Section 166 of the Act, it is only the owner of the damaged property who is entitled to file a claim petition. Since the respondent-claimant was not the owner, but was merely a consignee and was carrying the goods on behalf of the real owner, the respondent-claimant could not have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act. Secondly, while discussing the said issue, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the ambit and scope of Section 166 of the Act. The learned Tribunal has opined that since the claimant was duty bound to safely carry the consignment, and to deliver the same in safe and sound condition, the claimant could file the claim petition. According to the learned counsel, the said reasoning overlooks the ambit and scope of Section 166 of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the claim petition was not even maintainable. 4. This Court had issued notice to respondent No.1; by order dated 18-07-2017, the service of notice on respondent No.1 was deemed to be sufficient. However, despite the fact that the notice is deemed to have been served on the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is neither present personally, nor through a counsel. Therefore, this Court has no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against respondent No.1. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Smt. Shwetha Anand, and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Sri. Sandesh Shetty, have not raised any contention with regard to the issue being raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned award. 7. Section 166 of the Act is as under: 166. Sandesh Shetty, have not raised any contention with regard to the issue being raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned award. 7. Section 166 of the Act is as under: 166. Application for compensation.– (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made – (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) [***] (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act. 8. A bare perusal of the said section clearly reveals that it clearly defines the persons who are entitled to file an application for compensation arising out of an accident. According to Section 166(1)(b) of the Act, it is only the owner of the property who is entitled to file an application for compensation. Section 166(1)(b) does not empower an agent of the owner to file an application. According to Section 166(1)(b) of the Act, it is only the owner of the property who is entitled to file an application for compensation. Section 166(1)(b) does not empower an agent of the owner to file an application. Obviously a transporter is but a mere agent of the owner. Therefore, a transporter of a property could not have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. 9. Admittedly the respondent-claimant is not the owner of the property, but is merely a transporter. Thus, an agent. Therefore, clearly, the respondent-claimant could not have filed the claim petition for seeking compensation. The said claim petition could have been filed only by the owner of the DG set, under Section 166 of the Act. 10. This legal aspect has escaped the notice of the learned Tribunal while discussing issue No.2. Moreover, the logic given by the learned Tribunal that it is the duty of the transporter to safely carry the consignment and to securely deliver the goods, overlooks the ambit and scope of Section 166 of the Act. Hence the learned Tribunal has misapplied the law, although the issue of maintainability of the claim petition was raised before it. 11. Hence, in the light of Section 166 of the Act, the claim petition filed by the respondent-claimant is not even maintainable. Therefore the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 26-06-2014, is set aside. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be returned to the Insurance Company within a period of one week from today.