MACT lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual liability claims arising under personal accident insurance covers.

The appellant’s son, Udey Singh, died in a road accident while driving an Innova car owned by his father (Respondent No. 1). An unidentified truck allegedly hit the car and fled

The car was covered by a "Comprehensive/Package Policy" issued by Respondent No. 2, which included a personal accident cover for the owner-driver and additional cover for passengers

The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988, against the insurer of the Innova, arguing that the deceased should be treated as a "third-party occupant"

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed the petition, holding that a contractual liability claim is not maintainable under the MV Act

Section 147 of the MV Act regarding the requirements of policies and limits of liability

Section 166 regarding the proof of negligence in tortious claims

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi, which distinguished between statutory "Act Only" policies and contractual "Package" policies

Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., establishing that a borrower of a vehicle "steps into the shoes of the owner" and cannot be a third party

Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan to emphasize that proof of negligence is the "linchpin" for recovering compensation under Section 166

The court reasoned that a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act is based on the tort of negligence, requiring the claimant to prove the negligence of the driver-tortfeasor

Since the deceased was the driver of the vehicle, his legal heirs cannot claim he was negligent against himself to trigger the insurer's liability

Following Ningamma, the court found that because the deceased had borrowed the car from his father, he "stepped into the shoes of the owner" and thus lost the status of a "third party"

Regarding the "Package Policy," the court determined that while additional premium was paid for a Personal Accident Cover, this created a purely contractual obligation between the insurer and the insured

The court emphasized that the MACT is a statutory body with a specific remit to adjudicate statutory liabilities; extending its jurisdiction to interpret complex insurance contracts would "fetishize" and over-extend the Tribunal’s remit

The High Court upheld the dismissal of the claim petition, ruling that the appellant must approach a Consumer Forum or Civil Court to enforce the Personal Accident Cover. The appeal was dismissed