JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. The present appeal is filed by appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 20/09/2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux.), Junagadh in MACP No.89 of 2012. 2. The short facts of case are that appellant was insurer of Motorcycle No.GJ-11-AC-1191 of the ownership of Respondent No.1. Deceased Govindbhai Maisurbhai Borkhatariya was driving said motorcycle at time of accident on 22/02/2012 and due to sudden mechanical error in the motorcycle, the motorcycle dashed with a buffalo and slipped, as a result of which the accident occurred and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he expired during the course of his treatment at Civil Hospital, Junagadh. The said claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) by legal heirs of said deceased Govindbhai 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 fastened liability upon opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its full realization with proportionate costs. 3. The appellant has taken out this appeal feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with impugned judgment & award passed by learned Tribunal, on the grounds that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle belonging to opponent No.1 and in that view of the matter, the deceased steps into the shoes of the original owner and his status becomes borrower of the vehicle and neither the risk of the borrower is covered in the policy nor there is any statutory coverage. 4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant insurance company has strenuously argued that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Act and overlooked object & reasons of Act for which it is enacted. 4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant insurance company has strenuously argued that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the 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 is 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. He has submitted that deceased Govindbhai 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 Govindbhai stepped into shoe of original owner namely Maisurbhai Jethabhai. Hence, claim for death of deceased Govindbhai cannot be considered as claim of Third Party. He has further submitted that as such learned Tribunal could not have fastened liability upon the Insurance Company and owner of vehicle jointly and severally. 5. Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate has relied upon various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Ningama v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 ; (ii) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 ; (iii) United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Harchand Raichandan Lal, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 644 ; (iv) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 700 and (v) 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 (vi) 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 v. Deepakbhai Bhikhabhai Patel. 6. Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate has argued that the insurance 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 coverage as terms of contract is very clear. 6. Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate has argued that the insurance 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 coverage as terms of contract is very clear. He has therefore argued that deceased Govindbhai was neither a registered owner nor insured named in the policy then said cover of Insurance Policy to Owner-Driver is not available to deceased Govindbhai 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. Lastly, he has submitted that learned Tribunal ought 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 this appeal. 7. Though served, none of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has put an appearance to contest this appeal. Be that as it may. This Court has taken up this appeal for final hearing today. 8. Heard Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company and has gone through the impugned judgment and award and also considered the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the appellant. 9. 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. 10. Indisputably, the deceased was driving motorcycle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and 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 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. 11. 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 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. 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." 12. 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 shoes 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. 13. 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. 13. The said view is fortified by recent judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Deepakbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (supra) which is referred by Mr.Nanavati, 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. 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. 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. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th September, 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Junagadh in MACP No.89 of 2012 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.