Case at a Glance
A bus owner approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for damage to his own insured bus after it was struck by a train at a railway crossing in 1996. The Tribunal awarded Rs 65,850 and made the insurer and the railway authorities jointly and severally liable. The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the insurer’s appeal, holding that a claim for damage to the insured vehicle itself is an own-damage claim under the policy and does not fall within the Tribunal’s Section 166 jurisdiction merely because the damage resulted from a motor accident. The award was set aside.
On 18 December 1996, a bus owned by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with The Oriental Insurance Company was at the Lalghati Railway Crossing, Vijay Nagar, Bhopal, when the Bhopal–Indore Intercity train allegedly struck it, according to the owner because of negligence of the railway driver and gatekeeper. The owner filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, seeking Rs 6,71,769 for damage to the bus.
After a remand, the Tribunal by award dated 30 April 2012 in Claim Case No. 25 of 1998 assessed the damage at Rs 1,31,700, held the bus driver 50% negligent and awarded Rs 65,850, fastening liability jointly and severally on the insurer and the railway authorities. The insurer appealed, contending that the owner is not a third party and that own-damage claims belong before a civil court or consumer forum, not the Tribunal. The respondents supported the award as based on evidence.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the owner of an insured vehicle claim compensation for damage to that very vehicle before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and can the insurer be made liable in such proceedings?
Own Damage Is a Policy Claim, Not a Third-Party Claim
The Court noted that the claim related to damage to the insured vehicle itself and not to the property of a third party. Claims for death, bodily injury or damage to third-party property arising out of the use of a motor vehicle are what Section 166 contemplates. A claim for damage to one’s own insured vehicle is a different kind of claim: it arises under the contract of insurance, and it does not fall within the Tribunal’s proceedings “merely because the damage resulted from a motor accident.”
Applying the principle in Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Subhash & Ors., (2017) 09 BOM CK 0024, 2018 ACJ 1663 (Bombay High Court), relied on by the insurer, the Court held that the Tribunal erred both in entertaining the owner’s claim and in fastening liability on the insurer under Section 166. The owner’s remedy for own damage lay elsewhere, not before the Claims Tribunal.
What the Court Actually Held
- A claim by an owner for damage to his own insured vehicle is not a claim maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- Such an own-damage claim does not become a Tribunal matter merely because the damage was caused in a motor accident.
- The Tribunal erred in entertaining the claim and fastening liability on the insurer.
- The appeal was allowed and the award dated 30 April 2012 was set aside, with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It draws a clear line between third-party claims (death, injury, third-party property), which go to the MACT, and own-damage claims, which arise under the insurance contract.
- Vehicle owners who choose the wrong forum can lose years: here, a 1996 accident claim ended in 2026 with the award set aside on jurisdiction.
- Insurers can raise the jurisdictional objection in appeal where an own-damage claim was entertained under Section 166.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Vehicle Owners
- For damage to your own insured vehicle, pursue the own-damage claim with the insurer and, if rejected, the appropriate civil or consumer forum.
- The Claims Tribunal is for death, bodily injury and third-party property damage, not for the repair bill of your own vehicle.
For Counsel
- Check the nature of the claim at the outset: if it is for damage to the claimant’s own insured vehicle, a Section 166 petition is liable to fail.
- For insurers, rely on Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Subhash & Ors., 2018 ACJ 1663, and this decision to contest jurisdiction.
- Where a third party (such as the railways) is alleged to be at fault, consider a properly framed civil suit for damages.
Key Takeaways
- Own-damage claims are not Section 166 MACT claims.
- A motor accident cause does not make it a Tribunal matter.
- Insurer cannot be fastened with liability for own damage under Section 166.
- Award of Rs 65,850 set aside; no costs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a MACT claim for damage to my own car or bus?
According to this judgment, no. Damage to your own insured vehicle is an own-damage claim under your insurance policy; it is not maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 merely because it arose from an accident.
Who can approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal?
Section 166 claims relate to death, bodily injury or damage to the property of a third party arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Court distinguished such claims from own-damage claims.
What did the High Court order?
It allowed the insurer’s appeal and set aside the Tribunal’s award of 30 April 2012, which had granted Rs 65,850 against the insurer and the railway authorities jointly and severally. No costs were imposed.
Conclusion
The decision is a reminder that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a forum for the victims of accidents and for third parties, not a substitute for an owner’s contractual claim against his own insurer. Choosing the correct forum at the start can save decades of litigation.
Practical takeaway: If your own insured vehicle is damaged, claim under the policy and, if needed, approach a civil court or consumer commission; a Section 166 MACT petition for own damage is liable to be set aside.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com