JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the award 22.02.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.236 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (for short "the tribunal"). 2. The parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 20.06.2005 the petitioner along with his wife, his brother and his wife went to Kurnool in their car bearing No.A.P.21B 1805 from Adoni for the treatment of his brother Murali Krishna. After the treatment, while they were returning from Kurnool town, the petitioner saw his friend P. Moula Sab and the said Moula Sab also joined them in the return journey and he was driving the car at the time of accident. While Moula Sab was driving and cross Gonegandla near Ralladoddi village, a buffalo came in opposite direction. Moula Sab dashed the car to a boulder on the side of the road to avoid hitting the buffalo. Due to which the petitioner and driver Moula Sab sustained grievous injuries. They were rescued and taken to Karimnagar hospital by the MLA of Yemmiganur who was passing in his vehicle and took the injured persons to Yemmiganur hospital, to there their own friend Purusottam Reddy, on receipt of the message from his wife reached, and both of them were taken to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool and admitted there. The petitioner had undergone treatment and surgery in the said hospital and was an inpatient there for three months. The petitioner sustained a grievous injury to his head, involving a fracture, and he is still taking treatment. He has incurred much expenditure towards treatment and the other related expenditure. The Station House Officer, Yemmiganur Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2005. The petitioner claimed that he is a Commission Agent and does financial business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He is also an income tax assessee. After the accident, he is not able to pursue his business. His car is insured with the respondent-insurance company and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. Therefore, he claimed the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under different heads mentioned in the OP. 4. The respondent-insurance company filed its counter and opposed the claim. After the accident, he is not able to pursue his business. His car is insured with the respondent-insurance company and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. Therefore, he claimed the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under different heads mentioned in the OP. 4. The respondent-insurance company filed its counter and opposed the claim. The respondent admitted that they have issued policy to the car of the petitioner which met with an accident, however, denied the liability on the ground that the person who was permitted by the petitioner to drove the car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby he was negligent and indulgent and it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent further contended that the petitioner ought to have made the driver who was driving the car at the time of the accident as a party to the OP, since the claim rests on finding, whether the accident had occurred due to any rash and negligent acts on the part of the said person. But the petitioner and the person who was driving the car, who was his friend, colluded with each other and filed separate Ops for compensation both asking the insurance company that he is liable to pay them the compensation udner the policy issued to the car. The respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. Finally, it contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the OP. 5. During trial PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined. Ex.C.1 and C.2 were marked through the PW.2. 6. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the driver of the insured vehicle. With regard to the compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.99,759/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 7. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the respondentinsurance company filed the present appeal disputing its liability. 8. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner. 9. 7. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the respondentinsurance company filed the present appeal disputing its liability. 8. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is not entitled for any compensation from the insurance company. He contended that the owner being the insured and a party to the contract of insurance cannot be considered as a third party to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the tribunal constituted under the Act has no jurisdiction to consider the claim under Section 166 of the Act. He further contended that even assuming that the insurer is entitled to claim damages from the insurance company under the contract of insurance, he has to seek common law remedy either by filing suit or approaching the Consumer Redressal Forum. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award of the tribunal was just and reasonable in the light of the evidence available on record and there is no need to revise the same and learned counsel thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner who was the insured i.e., owner of the vehicle involved in the accident? 12. Upon perusal of the evidence on record and hearing both sides, it is necessary to look into the Sections 147, 149 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as reads hereunder; 147. 12. Upon perusal of the evidence on record and hearing both sides, it is necessary to look into the Sections 147, 149 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as reads hereunder; 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer, and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section(2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily (injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) Engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, (c) if it is a goods carriage being carried in the vehicle; or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made there under is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. 149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks:- (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under subsection (30 of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) (or under the provisions of section 163A) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. Chapter-XII Claims Tribunals:- 165. Claims Tribunals:- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the dearth 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. Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation under section 140 (and section 163-A). 13. Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation under section 140 (and section 163-A). 13. Thus, on plain reading of the Section 147 of the Act, the insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of the death of or bodily (injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle) or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. Section 149 requires that the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable there under, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs to indemnify the liability covered under a certificate of insurance which has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147. Section 165 provides for to constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating 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. 14. The intention of the law makers is very clear that the claims tribunals were constituted to redress the grievance of the third parties who are affected by the accidents arising out the use of motor vehicle, but not by the owners of the vehicles who are the insured. In the present case, the petitioner who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and who was the insured and party to the insurance policy which was marked as Ex.A.3 filed the claim petition seeking compensation without making the driver of the car, who was driving at the time of the accident. It is also to be noted that P. Moula Sab, friend of the petitioner, who has driven the order at the time of the accident, was examined as PW.3. It is also to be noted that P. Moula Sab, friend of the petitioner, who has driven the order at the time of the accident, was examined as PW.3. In his evidence he deposed that he was prosecuted before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur and that it is wife of the petitioner, who gave complaint against him to the police, on the basis of which the crime was registered, and that the said criminal case was referred to the Lok Adalat where the petitioner and himself entered into a compromise and an award was passed closing the criminal case. 15. On examination of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 and FIR which was marked as Ex.A.1 and charge sheet which was marked as Ex.A.2 and the driving licence of Moula Sab which was marked as Ex.A.8, there is no dispute with regard to the narration of facts with regard to occurrence of the accident. But the only point to be considered by this Court in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as sated supra and in the light of the evidence available on record, whether the tribunal has jurisdiction as constituted under Section 165 of the Act to deal with the claim application filed by the petitioner who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and as an insured who was the party to the contract of insurance policy issued by the insurance company which was marked under Ex.A.3. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Sunitha Rathi and another, (1998) ACJ 121 (SC) it has been held that: The liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect of damages to property of third parties. Thus, where the insured i.e., owner of the vehicle has no liability to third party, the insurance company has no liability also. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue in Dhanaraj vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another, (2005) 1 ALD 51 (SC) = 2005 ACJ 1 (SC) held that; "10: in this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue in Dhanaraj vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another, (2005) 1 ALD 51 (SC) = 2005 ACJ 1 (SC) held that; "10: in this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. We are unable to accept the contention that the premium of Rs.4,989/- paid under the heading "Own damage" is for covering the liability towards personal injury. Under the head of "Own damage" the words "premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories" appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. A owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case there is no such insurance." 18. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prabhadevi and others, (2013) ACJ 1382 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the liability of Insurance Company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third party. 19. In the present case this is a own claim of the owner of the vehicle towards compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident involved in his own vehicle. Ex.A.3, insurance policy issued to the insured vehicle was marked. In the schedule of the premium it was clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.100/- was paid to cover the compulsory personal accident to owner-driver for an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is also mentioned in the schedule that Rs.25/- was paid towards premium to cover the risk under workman compensation to employ. Rs.150/- was collected towards premium to cover the risk of three unnamed passengers for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per person. The tribunal on considering the schedule that the premium collected for coverage of personal accident of owner-driver covers the risk of the petitioner herein and hold that the policy covers the claim of the petitioner. In my considered opinion the finding of the tribunal on this aspect is not correct. As per the schedule in the policy the premium of Rs.100/- collected to cover the risk of the owner as and when drives the vehicle. It clearly proves that there is another clause covering the risk to an employee under the Workman Act for which Rs.25/- was collected as premium. As per the schedule in the policy the premium of Rs.100/- collected to cover the risk of the owner as and when drives the vehicle. It clearly proves that there is another clause covering the risk to an employee under the Workman Act for which Rs.25/- was collected as premium. The risk of the driver of the vehicle will cover under that head and it is unlimited. As such, Ex.A.3, insurance policy does not cover the risk of the petitioner in the present case. 20. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to approach the Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident involved in his own vehicle. The petitioner has to take appropriate proceedings by filing the suit or to approach the Consumer Redressal Forum for a redressal to his grievance. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award 22.02.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.236 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Family Court-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni is set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.