JUDGMENT : The judgment and decree dated 10.07.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.123 of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mettur, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. M/s.Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, who is the appellant herein, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company mainly contended that the vehicle belongs to the respondent-claimant undoubtedly was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. However, the policy covers only third party liability and the respondent-claimant, being the owner of the vehicle, is not covered under the policy and therefore, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed compensation on the appellant-Insurance Company. It is further contended that the chargesheet was filed against Mr. Ponnusamy, the second respondent herein and in the criminal proceedings, the second respondent Mr. Ponnusamy pleaded guilty and paid the fine. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to fix liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. This apart, the first respondent/claimant is not a third party and the claim against the owner of the vehicle is not covered under the Insurance Policy and the claim petition is not maintainable, since there is no policy coverage as the quantum of compensation and assessment of disability is also questioned by the appellant. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/claimant opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that there is a Insurance Policy as far as the vehicle belongs to the first respondent/claimant is concerned and therefore, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as the Insurance Policy was in force at the time of accident and the accident was also established. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation and the award of the Tribunal is to be confirmed. 6. The accident occurred on 13.03.2007 at about 03.30 P.M., near Keel Kulla Veeranpatty, Mettur Dam-I. The Mettur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2007 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. The first respondent-claimant sustained injuries and had taken treatment both as inpatient and thereafter as outpatient. The claim petition is filed. 7. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and the evidences. The first respondent-claimant sustained injuries and had taken treatment both as inpatient and thereafter as outpatient. The claim petition is filed. 7. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and the evidences. The counter filed by the appellant-Insurance Company reveals that they have taken a ground that the first respondent-claimant is not a third party and therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable. However, the Tribunal has not considered these aspects and fixed the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. 8. As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the second respondent-Mr. Ponnusamy is liable, as he committed the act of negligence. 9. Based on the evidence as well as the fact that the chargesheet was filed in the criminal case, the second respondent-Mr. Ponnusamy pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court and paid the fine. Thus, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the second respondent- Mr. Ponnusamy is responsible for the accident. However, the Tribunal has awarded compensation against the appellant-Insurance Company without considering the fact that the vehicle belongs to the first respondent-claimant alone, is insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the coverage is only for the third party and not for the owner of the vehicle. 10. The Tribunal has categorically considered the fact that there is no policy coverage with reference to the vehicle belongs to the second respondent. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard are extracted hereunder:- 11. The above findings of the Tribunal is unambiguous that the vehicle belongs to the first respondent-claimant was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, there is a policy coverage for the third party and not for the owner. 12. The facts established before the Tribunal are that the first respondent-claimant himself had driven the vehicle, which met with an accident and he, being the owner of the vehicle, is not covered under the Insurance Policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company. In the absence of any coverage in the Insurance Policy, liability cannot be fixed. 13. This apart, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company brought to the notice of this Court that there is no Personal Accident Coverage in the said Insurance Policy issued to the first respondent-claimant. Even in such cases, for claiming the personal accident coverage policy, the first respondent has to approach the Competent Forum. 13. This apart, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company brought to the notice of this Court that there is no Personal Accident Coverage in the said Insurance Policy issued to the first respondent-claimant. Even in such cases, for claiming the personal accident coverage policy, the first respondent has to approach the Competent Forum. However, in the present case, there is no Personal Accident Coverage and third party policy coverage alone is available and the vehicle, which met with an accident, belongs to the first respondent-claimant and the same had been driven by him. Thus, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable and compensation is to be paid by the second and third respondents. 14. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the third respondent died. A memo has been filed to the said effect and the same stands accepted. 15. With reference to the liability to be fixed against the Insurance Company, this Court had elaborately discussed the scope in the case of M/s.The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ramesh Babu [Judgment pronounced in CMA No.2434 of 2019 on 02.09.2020], wherein in paragraphs 13, 14, 35, 36 and 37, this Court observed as under:- “13. The learned counsel for the appellant solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the judgment rendered in the case of Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Company Limited Vs. Somu dated 04.03.2020, reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC Page.547, wherein it was held that the policy of Insurance being contractual, the claimant entitled to claim compensation only with reference to the terms and conditions of the policy and not beyond that. Disability suffered not covered under the table given, in Section IV Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver, in the conditions of the policy of insurance. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal was quashed in Paragraph 13 of the above judgment. 14. In yet another judgment in the case of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Poongavanam, dated 12.03.2020, reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC Page 600, wherein it is held that when a claim is made in terms of Contractual liability (other than Statutory liability), the Policy Holder/ Beneficiary has to approach the concerned Forum. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal entertaining claims made under Personal Accident Coverage (being a contractual liability) was held erroneous. In paragraph 8 & 9 of the judgment has held as stated above. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal entertaining claims made under Personal Accident Coverage (being a contractual liability) was held erroneous. In paragraph 8 & 9 of the judgment has held as stated above. The respondent being the owner of Tata Indica Tourist Taxi bearing Registration No.TN-32-L-8595, is not entitled to any claim for compensation, Since there is no statutory cover envisaged for the owner under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. For these reasons, the appellant is of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 35. The Motor Vehicles Act being a Special legislation and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is constituted to deal with the Accident Claims specifically and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal have no jurisdiction to deal with all other policies issued by the Insurance company, which all are contractual in nature and the terms and conditions agreed between the parties specifically. Such contracted policy cannot raise any right to the parties to file Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act and such claims are to be made before the competent Forum namely before Consumer Forum or before the competent Civil Court of Law. The enforceability of the terms and conditions cannot be adjudicated as such contractual policies are unconnected with the scope of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, more specifically, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 36. It is relevant to consider that the Motor Vehicle policies are issued by the Insurance company for the purpose of grant of compensation and the language employed is “Compensation”. However, the Personal Accident Coverage Policy reveals that it is “benefit” is to be granted. Thus, the word “Compensation” adopted under the Motor Vehicle Policy cannot be equated with the “benefit” to be granted under the Personal Accident Policy, which is independent and unconnected with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the compensation to be assessed and granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is a difference between the Motor Vehicle Policy and Personal Accident Coverage Policy. Motor Accident Policies are strictly within the ambit of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Personal Accident Coverage Policy is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. There is a difference between the Motor Vehicle Policy and Personal Accident Coverage Policy. Motor Accident Policies are strictly within the ambit of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Personal Accident Coverage Policy is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The contractual liability or obligations cannot be adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in such an event, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are usurping the powers of the competent Civil Court, which is impermissible. If such contractual liabilities are adjudicated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, then the Tribunal are exercising excess jurisdiction, which is not contemplated nor conferred under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 37. This being the distinct factors, which are to be ascertained with reference to the nature of Insurance Policy, all the Tribunals are bound to look into the nature of the Policy at the first instance, before entertaining the Claim Petition. The Litigants should not be unnecessarily driven to various Courts by waiting for a long period before the Accident Claims Tribunal. Whenever a Claim Petition is filed, either under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Act or otherwise, the entertainability as well as the maintainability of the Claim Petitions are to be verified with reference to the nature of the policies issued by the Insurance Company. Contrarily, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the terms and conditions agreed between the parties in a contract and grant compensation by invoking the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act.” 16. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment, cited supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the first respondent-claimant, being the owner of the vehicle, which met with an accident, is not entitled to claim compensation against the appellant-Insurance Company. However, the respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation to the first respondent-claimant. 17. The liability on the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be fixed in view of the fact that there is no policy coverage, as the policy coverage is only for the third party and the owner cannot be considered as a third party. Thus, the respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation to the first respondent-claimant. 18. 17. The liability on the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be fixed in view of the fact that there is no policy coverage, as the policy coverage is only for the third party and the owner cannot be considered as a third party. Thus, the respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation to the first respondent-claimant. 18. The Tribunal has not considered the ground regarding the maintainability of the claim petition against the appellant-Insurance Company and the policy coverage provided with reference to the terms and conditions of the policy. 19. The appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and payments are to be made through RTGS. 20. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.123 of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mettur stands set aside as far as the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned and stands confirmed as far as the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned. Consequently, CMA No.1718 of 2019 is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.