V.K. GUPTA, CJ.

(1.) The only ground of challenge in this appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant insurer against the judgment and award dated 26.12.1994 passed in M.A.C. No.21-S/2 of 1991 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Shimla, is that Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein even though the property allegedly damaged in the accident (apple boxes) did not belong to these respondents.

(2.) Mr. A.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurer submits that the apple boxes did not belong to the claimant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 in as much as it was the own case of claimants that the apple boxes belonged to pro forma respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in the claim petition, who are respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in this appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I feel that I cannot agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Sharma and for the simple reason that section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates about the constitution of the Claims Tribunals (for adjudication of 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. Under section 166 of the Act an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature mentioned in section 165 can be made by the owner of the property. The expression 'by the owner of the property' as occurring in section 166 (1) (b) surely has a direct nexus and link with the expression 'any property of a third party' occurring in sub-section (1) of section 165 and conjoint reading of both these expressions clearly indicates that an application for compensation in terms of section 166 of the Act can be made by the owner of a property and such owner has to be a third party and when we talk of a third party with respect to the ownership of the property damaged in the accident we mean the party other than the insured inasmuch as the insurer and the insured are parties to the contract of insurance and as long as the insured is not the claimant with respect to the compensation claimed for damage to his property, the claim will come within the purview of damage to the 'property of a third party'. In other words, whenever a property is being carried in a vehicle which is the subject-matter of an insurance policy and this property also does not belong to the insured-owner of the vehicle in question nor is this property itself covered by any other independent policy of insurance, if it is damaged in an accident, this property belonging to such a third party, such a third party is entitled to file a claim petition under section 166 of the Act.

(4.) Thus, viewed in the aforesaid legal backdrop, let us proceed to examine the contention of the claimants in the claim petition. The claimants' case as set up in the claim petition was that the apple boxes in fact did belong to respondent Nos.5 to 8 and were entrusted by them to the claimants for forwarding these boxes to V.F.T., Delhi, through the forwarding company of the claimants known by the name of Chand Forwarding Company. It was also the contention of claimants in the claim petition that they had given the empty apple boxes and the material for packing, etc. to the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and these respondents after packing the apples had given the packed boxes to claimants. The claimants were to receive the costs from the growers on receipt of the price of apples from the V.F.T., Delhi. A careful reading of these factual averments should leave no one in any manner of doubt that the apple boxes, once these were loaded in the truck were the property of Chand Forwarding Company and that Chand Forwarding Company was owned by the claimants and in that sense of the matter, therefore, the claimants vis-a-vis the insurer as well as the insured being 'a third party' were entitled to maintain the claim petition and ask for compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of damage to their property. In addition to this, they had taken care to implead pro forma respondent Nos. 5 to 8 herein as the respondent Nos. 4

to 7 in the claim petition. As far as the appellant insurer, therefore, is concerned, it could not be permitted to raise any challenge to maintainability of the claim petition at the instance of the claimants. No other point was urged by Mr. A.K. Sharma. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Whatever amount the appellant has deposited in this court shall be disbursed to the claimants with up-to-date interest accrued thereupon. Appeal dismissed.