RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants for death claim of the owner of the vehicle whose claim petition has been dismissed. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that all the witnesses who appeared on behalf of claimant namely; AW-2 Ramphal, AW-3 Kishori Lal, AW-6 Shamsher Singh have stated that the deceased was travelling in the bus after paying fare. 3. Shri Prashant Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the claim petition of such passengers having been allowed, the learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting claim petition of the appellants for the accidental death of Hukam Chand. 4. Shri Pritam Brijlani, learned counsel for the respondent cited the judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukti & Ors.- 2009 ACJ 998 , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi & Ors.- 2008 ACJ 1441 = 2008(3) RLW 2285 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jhuma Saha & Ors.- 2007 ACJ 818 , Dhanraj vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.-2005 ACJ 1 = RLW 2004(4) SC 594 and argued that the deceased Hukam Chand was owner of the vehicle and that evidence of the witnesses that he was travelling in his own vehicle on payment of fare, cannot be accepted and such an evidence, does not inspire any confidence. In any case, he being owner in his own vehicle, will not fall in third party and insurance company cannot be held liable to pay him compensation. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition because the deceased was owner of vehicle and while travelling in his own vehicle, he cannot be held to be third party. The insurance cover in the present case was extended to the driver and in holding so, the Tribunal has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi & Anr.-1998 ACJ 121. The finding of the Tribunal was that as per insurance policy, the insurance company agreed to cover the risk of only third party and the damage caused to the bus was covered. 6. In Sadanan Mukhi, supra the death of son of insured had taken place while driving motor cycle. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi & Anr.-1998 ACJ 121. The finding of the Tribunal was that as per insurance policy, the insurance company agreed to cover the risk of only third party and the damage caused to the bus was covered. 6. In Sadanan Mukhi, supra the death of son of insured had taken place while driving motor cycle. The insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that deceased was not a third party. It was held by the Supreme Court that whatsoever becomes victim of accident arising out of use of vehicle would not come within the purview of the term 'a person' under Section 147. 7. In view of above, the claim petition has rightly been rejected. I see no reason to interfere in the award of the Tribunal. The appeal stands dismissed.