Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Claimants?respondents No. 1 and 2 (being the parents) on the death of Jagtar Singh @ Happy, who died in a motor vehicular accident, were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,69,000/? along with interest @ 6% per annum against the appellant and respondents No.3 and 4, jointly and severally. 2. The allegations, in nut shell, are that on 4.5.2004, Jagtar Singh was going from Bela to Cliamkaur Sahib on his scooter bearing registration No.PB?12A? 6434. At about 9.00 a.m. when he reached near the T?Point of village Makarapur, a stray cattle suddenly came in front of his scooter, whereupon he applied the brakes but these did not function consequently the scooter went out of control and struck against the popular tree. Resultantly, Jagtar Singh fell on the road and suffered serious injuries, whereupon he was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Chamkaur Sahib and thereafterto P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he died on 7.5.2004. Thus, on the death of Jagtar Singh, aged about 21 years, unmarried son, the claimants preferred this claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs along with interest. 3. While contesting the claim petition, respondents No. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement admitted the accident, however, they pleaded that it took place due to the negligence of Jagtar Singh. Respondent No.3 in its separate written statement pleaded that no such accident had taken place as alleged by the claimants. The deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the petition is not maintainable. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed ?? 1. Whether Jagtar Singh died in motor vehicle accident which occurred due to the use of scooter No.PB?12A?6434 on 4.5.2004 ? OPP 2. Whether at the time of accident driver of scooter No.PB?12A?6434 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence? If so, to what effect ? OPR 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP 5. Relief. 5. In order to prove the issues, the claimants examined Harbhajan Singh (PW1), Ajmer Singh (PW2) and Nasib Singh (PW3). If so, to what effect ? OPR 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP 5. Relief. 5. In order to prove the issues, the claimants examined Harbhajan Singh (PW1), Ajmer Singh (PW2) and Nasib Singh (PW3). To the contrary, respondents No.1 and 2 tendered copy of the driving licence of Jagtar Singh Ex.R?1, copy of the registration certificate of scooter bearing registration No.PB?12A?6434 Ex.R2 and copy of the insurance policy Ex.R3. Respondent No.3 examined Nasib Chand Investigator (RW1), Amarjit Kaur (RW2) and tendered into evidence insurance policy Ex.R6. 6. With regard to maintainability of the petition this court vide order dated 9.10.2006 had observed hat since the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence had assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.40,000/? per annum, therefore, the application filed under Section 163?A of the Motor Vehicle Act was maintainable. 7. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Policy was against the third party risks as provided under Section 147 of the Act and the deceased being the owner or at the most borrower could not be said to be a third party. In order to become eligible for compensation for the loss caused to the vehicle as provided under Section 147 of the Act, the person who suffered loss must be a third party and in the present case the deceased was not a third party, therefore, the compensation could not be awarded by the Tribunal. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment delivered in case Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009(3) R. C.R. (Civil) 435? 2009 A CJ 2020. 8. Arguments heard. Record perused. 9. Admitted, the deceased was either owner or the borrower of the scooter and he was not a third party. Section 147 of the Act enables the claimants to seek compensation regarding death of third party in an accident. Section 147 of the Act reads as under ?? "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability ? (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which ? Section 147 of the Act enables the claimants to seek compensation regarding death of third party in an accident. Section 147 of the Act reads as under ?? "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability ? (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which ? (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; or (b) insures, the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub?section (2) ? (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place ? Provided that a policy shall not be required ? (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee ? (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle or; (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability , (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 ? (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. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons." 10. Section 147 of the Act provides that it covers cases against any liability which may be incurred by the injured with respect to the death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the vehicle or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or arising out the use of the vehicle in the public place and the policy covers only the third party risks but in the facts of the present case, the deceased was not a third party. therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any benefit under Section 163?A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 ACJ 2020. 11. In these circumstances, this legal question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is decided in his favour. As such, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation arising out of the death of Jagtar Singh alias Happy who while driving his own scooter suffered injuries on account of stray cattle coming in front of him. Resultantiy, interference in the impugned award has become inevitable. 12. Consequently, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the claim petition with no order as to costs.