COMMON JUDGMENT: MACMA 1000/2012 is directed by the 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.278/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2. MACMA 2232/2015 is directed by the 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.278/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal. 4. The MVOP 278/2008 was filed U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- for the damage of the car of the claimant against the 1st respondent/driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081, owner of the lorry/2nd respondent of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081, 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited/insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 i.e., appellant in MACMA 1000/2012 and 4th respondent/ appellant in MACMA 2232/2015/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited/insurer of the car bearing No.AP 5V 6125 owned by the claimant. 5. The main contention of the appellant in MACMA 1000/2012, the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 is that Ex.B-1 insurance policy issued by the company is an Act policy; and therefore, U/s.147(2)(b) of M.V.Act 1988, its liability towards damage of property of a third party is confined to Rs.6,000/- only; in that view, the impugned order and decree of the learned Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant/Insurance Company to pay 50% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.2,03,000/- is not valid in law. 6. The main contention of the appellant/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is that the claim petition is filed U/s.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 for own damages (O.D.) for the car; and therefore, it is not maintainable in view of section 165(1) of M.V.Act, 1988 which permit claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury, persons arising out of use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both but the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for own damages (O.D.) against the insurer, and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is not valid in law. 7. 7. The case of the claimant is that he is owner of the car bearing No.AP 5V 6125 and it was insured with the 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, and while so, on 09.11.2007 at about 07.45 a.m. the deceased Pamu Rajesh and others were travelling in the car from Visakhapatnam to Nidadavolu and the car reached a place near coco gardens of one Palacherla Venkata Rao of Bendapudi Village; the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 coming from Vemagiri village side proceeding towards P.E.Chinnayapalem Centre; came on wrong route and the driver of the vehicle (1st respondent) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car; as a result, the car damaged and the driver of the car and four others travelling in the car died on the spot; Police registered a case, investigated the same and laid police report (charge sheet); Hence, filed petition U/s.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation for damages to the car against the driver of the lorry (1st respondent), owner of the lorry (2nd respondent), insurer of the lorry (3rd respondent), and insurer of the car (4th respondent). 8. The 4th respondent i.e., insurer of the car filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable under M.V.Act. 9. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent of driver (1st respondent) of the lorry. 10. When coming to the liability to pay compensation for damages to the car, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,03,000/- towards damages and directed the insurer of the lorry i.e., appellant in MACMA 1000/2012 and the insurer of the car i.e., appellant in MACMA 2232/2015 to pay the above amount at 50% each. 11. The learned counsel for appellant in MACMA 1000/2012 would submit that it is an admitted fact that the New India Assurance Company Limited (3rd respondent), the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 issued Ex.B-1 insurance policy, is Act only policy, and therefore, U/s.147(2)(b) of M.V.Act 1988, liability to a third party property damage is confined to Rs.6,000/- only, but the learned Tribunal erroneously directed the appellant to pay 50% of the compensation amount awarded for the damages of the car, belonging to the claimant. 12. 12. The learned counsel for appellant in support of his arguments, relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Kolla Venkateswarlu and Abdul Kareem and another, 2004(2) APLJ 443 (HC) and another judgment of this Court in MACMA 304/2012 dated 30.11.2023, wherein this Court considered section 147(2)(b) of M.V.Act 1988, and held that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.6,000/- only under Act only policy in respect of damage to third party property. 13. The learned counsel for appellant in MACMA 2232/2015 would submit that it is an admitted fact the claim petition was filed claiming compensation for damages of the car i.e., own damages (O.D.) against his own insurer, and therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable U/s.166 of M.V.Act 1988, and the remedy for the claimant is to approach an appropriate forum i.e., either a Civil Court or Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or an Ombudsman of the appellant. 14. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmi Narain Dutt, 2007(3) SCC 700 2. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. F.R.Phillip K.T3, 2021 ACJ 1499 3. Tek Ram Vs. Narinder Singh and others, 2011 SCC Online P&H 1183 15. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in these appeals are as under: 1. Whether the liability of Insurance Company is confined only to Rs.6,000/- U/s.147(2)(b) of M.V.Act, 1988? 2. Whether a claim petition is maintainable U/s.166 of M.V.Act, 1988, for Own Damages (OD) to property? 3. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 4. To what relief? 16. POINT No.1: It is an admitted fact that the car of the claimant bearing No.AP 5V 6125 was involved in the impugned accident occurred on 09.11.2007. The car was damaged in said accident. The learned Tribunal on evidence placed before it, found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 driven by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the owner-cum-insured of the said lorry. The 3rd respondent (appellant in MACMA 1000/2012) is the insurer of the said lorry. the 3rd respondent issued Ex.B-1 insurance policy. It is an admitted fact that Ex.B-1 is Act only policy. 17. The 2nd respondent is the owner-cum-insured of the said lorry. The 3rd respondent (appellant in MACMA 1000/2012) is the insurer of the said lorry. the 3rd respondent issued Ex.B-1 insurance policy. It is an admitted fact that Ex.B-1 is Act only policy. 17. The contention of the Insurance Company is that its liability for compensation in respect of accident involving damages to any property of a third party is limited to Rs.6,000/- only, in view of section 147(2)(b) of M.V.Act, 1988. Section 147(2)(b) of M.V.Act 1988, is as under: (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. 18. A reading of the provision would show that for the claim of compensation towards damages to any property of a third party, limit of Rs.6,000/- is fixed. This Court in Kolla Venkateswarlu and Abdul Kareem and another and in MACMA 304/2012, considered the above section relating to payment of damages to the property of a third party, covered by Act only policy, held that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs.6,000/- only. The learned Tribunal did not consider the said plea of appellant/Insurance Company in MACMA 1000/2012 and erroneously ordered directing the insurer of the lorry to pay 50% of the amount of the compensation awarded for damages of the car. which is exceeding Rs.6,000/-. In that view of the matter, the order and decree of the learned Tribunal is not valid in law, and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this point is answered. 19. which is exceeding Rs.6,000/-. In that view of the matter, the order and decree of the learned Tribunal is not valid in law, and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this point is answered. 19. POINT No.2: The contention of the appellant (4th respondent)/Insurance Company is that claim relates to own damage (O.D.), and therefore, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal U/s.166 of M.V.Act 1988, has no jurisdiction; it has to be decided by another forum i.e., forum created under Consumer Protection Act 1986, or Civil Court or Ombudsman of the appellant/Insurance Company. 20. It is an admitted fact that the claimant filed the application U/s.166 of M.V. Act 1988, seeking compensation for damages to his own car i.e., Own Damages (OD). 21. A reading of section 165 of M.V. Act 1988 would disclose that the learned Tribunal under M.V.Act, 1988 was constituted 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 damage to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Therefore, it is very clear that the adjudication in respect of property shall be in respect of damages to property of a third party. Therefore, the property mentioned in the section 166(1)(b) of M.V. Act, 1988 is not the property belonging to the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the property mentioned is owner of the goods etc., being carried in the vehicle. It cannot be construed as owner of a vehicle whose vehicle damaged in the accident. The property mentioned in the section is the property suffered by third party only, but not by the owner of the vehicle. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmi Narain Dutt in para 21 held as under: “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. 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.” 23. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Tek Ram Vs.Narinder Singh and others, considered section 165 of M.V.Act, and held that “the claimants Tribunal has power to dispose of a claim for compensation arising out of damage to any property of a third party in a motor accident, and that the claim for damages for his own vehicles does not lie before a Tribunal and claimant has to prosecute his claim in appropriate forum either before a Civil Court or forum under Consumer Protection Act.” 24. In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim petition filed U/s.166 of M.V.Act 1988, before the Motor Accidents Tribunal, against the appellant in MACMA 2232/2015, who is insurer of the car bearing No.AP5V 6125 for own damages (O.D.) in respect of his own car is not maintainable. Therefore, the order and decree of the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of M.V.Act 1988, for own damages (O.D.) is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this point is answered. 25. POINT No.3: In view of findings on points No.1 and 2, both the appeals i.e., MACMA 1000/2012 and 2232/2015 be allowed. Accordingly, this point is answered. 26. POINT No.4: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No.1 to 3, the appeals in MACMA 1000/2012 and MACMA 2332/2015 are allowed, by setting aside the order and decree dated 23.08.2010 passed in MVOP 278/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl.District Judge (F.T.C), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. However, considering the length of time, claim amount awarded against both the appellants, and in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent/claimant need not refund the amount, if any already been withdrawn by him, out of 50% compensation amount deposited by the appellants as per orders in MACMAMP No.974/2011 dated 18.03.2011 in MACMA 1000/2012 and MACMAMP No.1063/2011 dated 23.03.2011 in MACMA 2232/2015 respectively, at the time of granting interim stay, while admitting the appeals. 28. 28. However, if the appellant in MACMA 1000/2012 i.e.,3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, did not deposit any amount as per above interim orders, it shall deposit a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, and the respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.