C/FA/1307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1307 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Versus POONAMBEN WD/O FULAJI JADAV & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 9 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7,8 UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 5 VIRAL K VASHI(8220) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company  against   the  judgment  and  award   dated   31.01.2019 passed   by   the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (Auxi.) Gandhinagar at Kalol in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.384 of 2012 and order dated 04.03.2021 passed in Review Application No.1 of 2021. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parities. 3. The   brief   facts   of   the   case   are   that   on   03.08.2012,   the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a car insured with the appellant. When the car reached near the place of the accident, the driver of the trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner   and   collided   with   the   car. As   a   result   of   the   said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed C/FA/1307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 thereto. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as the deceased was the owner of the insured vehicle and not a third party, and therefore was not entitled to claim compensation. It was contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error in awarding   compensation. He   further   submitted   that   even assuming   that   the   Insurance   Company   had   accepted   an additional   premium,   the   liability   of   the   Insurance   Company, being in the case of the owner of the vehicle, is limited to the terms   and   conditions   of   the   policy,   and   that   the   Insurance Company is liable only to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- towards personal accident cover for the owner. In this  regard,  it was submitted   that   the   Insurance   Company   had   filed   Review Application No.1 of 2021 before the learned Tribunal, which also came   to   be   dismissed. Hence,   the   learned   advocate   for   the appellant prayed that both the judgment and order be quashed and set aside and that the present appeal be allowed. 5. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and upon perusal of the documents on record, it appears that in MACP No.384 of 2012, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs   of   the   deceased,   namely   Fulaji   Prahladji   Jadav. In   the cause title, claimant No.1, Poonamben Fulaji Jadav, widow of the deceased,   is   shown   as   the   claimant,   whereas   the   deceased himself was the owner of the car, namely Indica Vista bearing Registration No. GJ-01-KA-9178, and is also shown as opponent No.1. Thus, the claim petition was filed against the deceased himself. A   claimant   and   an   opponent   cannot   be   the   same C/FA/1307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 person. 6. It is an undisputed and admitted fact that the legal heirs of the deceased, who was the owner of the offending vehicle, have filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the accident caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The owner of the vehicle is not entitled to file a claim petition under Section 166   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act   against   his   own   Insurance Company, as the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured only in respect of third-party risk, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. As per Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the Insurance Company arises only to satisfy a claim in accordance with the policy conditions. In the present case, the core  issue is not breach  of policy, but the maintainability of the claim petition itself. 7. Undisputedly, the deceased was the registered owner of the vehicle and was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. His legal heirs have preferred the claim petition against their   own   Insurance   Company   seeking   compensation   for   the injuries sustained by him and the resultant death. The deceased cannot   be   treated   as   a   third   party,   as   he   himself   was   the insured. Chapter   XI   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act   mandates compulsory insurance only for third-party risk. In the present case, no injury or damage has been caused to any third party. The   loss   or   injury   was   suffered   by   the   owner   of   the   vehicle himself. 8. In view of the law laid down by this Court in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipakbhai Bhikabhai Patel, C/FA/1307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 (2017) 2 GLR 1100, the learned Tribunal committed an error in saddling the Insurance Company with liability, as the owner of the offending vehicle himself was the tortfeasor and cannot claim compensation   from   the   Insurance   Company   for   his   own negligence. 9. Upon perusal of the insurance policy, it appears that an additional premium was paid covering the personal accident risk of the owner-driver. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- only, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. To that extent, the present appeal deserves consideration. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is  partly allowed. The judgment and   award   dated   31.01.2019   passed   by   the   Motor   Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gandhinagar at Kalol in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.384 of 2012 and the order dated 04.03.2021 passed in Review Application No.1 of 2021 are modified to the extent   that   the  liability  of  the  appellant–Insurance  Company, namely Reliance Insurance Company Limited (original opponent No.2),   shall   stand   limited   to   Rs.2,00,000/-   only,   instead   of Rs.6,74,800/-. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/12/2025 18:07:40