JUDGMENT G.D. Saxena, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against an Award dated 14th December 2004 in Claim Case No. 77/2004 passed by the Third Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Gwalior dismissing thereby claim petition of appellants under Section 163-A of the Act. (2) The facts of the case are that on 9th April 02 deceased Devenra Kumar Saxena working as an Auditor in the Accountant General Office was going by his scooter from Katoratal towards the way of J.A. Hospital Gwalior. At that juncture, it is alleged that one jeep being driven rashly and negligently by some unknown person caused hit to the deceased, resultantly, he got seriously injured. He was admitted in the hospital but could not be saved. No F.I.R. of the incident was lodged in Police Station. The Marg report at the behest of Medical Officer of the concerned hospital was written. On inquiry, it appears that no vehicle dashed the deceased whereas he got injured on account of his own negligence. So, the final report was filed before the trial Magistrate. It is stated that the vehicle was insured under comprehensive policy with respondent-Insurance Company. Under the circumstances, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 11,30,000/- against the respondent under all heads. The learned tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record dismissed the claim petition, hence, this appeal. (3) It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the impugned award rejecting claim petition by the learned MACT is against the evidence on record and the law applicable to the present case. It is submitted that the deceased was driving the vehicle which was comprehensively insured with respondent/Insurance Company and thus, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the claim for accident which arose due to rash and negligent driving of the opposite vehicle which was unknown. It is submitted that there was no violation of the terms of policy by the deceased. In such premises, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the award for appropriate amount against the Insurance company may be passed. It is submitted that there was no violation of the terms of policy by the deceased. In such premises, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the award for appropriate amount against the Insurance company may be passed. (4) Though, the cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. are not filed on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company, it is pointed out that the Insurance Company under comprehensive policy cannot be blamed for seeking claim under personal injury by the owner himself. The Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the liability of the owner/insured to others and not to cover the injuries/death of the insured. It is contended that in this case the deceased died due to negligence of his own, in that situation the claim petition seeking compensation is not maintainable and the learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the same. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. (5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and the law governing the issue involved in the case. (6) The question to be considered in this appeal is whether the legal representatives of the deceased-cum-owner- cum-driver can claim compensation under section 163-A of the Act ? (7) In Sunita Lokhande Vs. New India Assurance Company & another 2008 ACJ 921 , the Full Bench of this court headed by Hon'ble Justice A.K. Patnaik (as he then was) observed as follows :- “9.-Question No. (b) Referred by the Division bench is whether legal hairs of the deceased owner can put forth a claim for compensation in the absence of special policy ? New India Assurance Company & another 2008 ACJ 921 , the Full Bench of this court headed by Hon'ble Justice A.K. Patnaik (as he then was) observed as follows :- “9.-Question No. (b) Referred by the Division bench is whether legal hairs of the deceased owner can put forth a claim for compensation in the absence of special policy ? As a logical corollary of our answer to question to question (a) above, we hold that legal hairs of deceased owner cannot put a claim for compensation for death or injury of the deceased in a motor accident unless additional premium in respect of personal injury has been taken by the insurance company by way of special insurance contract from the owner of the vehicle” "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may keeping in view the cost of living, by notification in the official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second schedule. (8) In Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. (3) The Central Government may keeping in view the cost of living, by notification in the official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second schedule. (8) In Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( AIR 2009 SC 3056 ), the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows :- “19............................In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA.” (9) In Munda Tai Vs. New India assurance Co. Ltd. 2013 ACJ 1202, while dealing with the question by this court referred to above, it is observed that since there was a special contract between the insurance company and the owner deceased and accordingly the deceased, inter alia paid extra premium for damages of his own, the respondent insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. (10) In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan ( AIR 2013 SC 473 ), the Hon. Apex Court observed about the package/comprehensive motor policy regarding the indemnifying the liability of the insurer company and while considering observed as follows :- “21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy" stands on a different footing from a "Comprehensive/Package Policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy" stands on a different footing from a "Comprehensive/Package Policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "Comprehensive/Package Policy", the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (2009 AIR SCW 5325) (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same. 22. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the question that emerges for consideration is whether in the case at hand, the policy is an "Act Policy" or "Comprehensive/Package Policy". There has been no discussion either by the tribunal or the High Court in this regard. True it is, before us, Annexure P-1 has been filed which a policy is issued by the insurer. It only mentions the policy to be a "comprehensive policy" but we are inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a "package policy" to cover the liability of an occupant in a car.” (11) Having examined the principles of law applicable to the cases, now this court would turn to the present case. It is very unfortunate that no FIR regarding the accident by another vehicle was lodged by the claimants side. Marg information report was registered on the basis of information received from the hospital. On inquiry into marg, it appeared that the accident was the result of the acts of the deceased himself. The claimants also could not prove by producing cogent and reliable evidence that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. On inquiry into marg, it appeared that the accident was the result of the acts of the deceased himself. The claimants also could not prove by producing cogent and reliable evidence that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. It is admitted that the vehicle was insured for a third party and own damage under certain conditions. It is also admitted that the insured for the cover of the insurance paid Rs. 2340/- for replacement of parts of damaged scooter of accident. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased, the owner of the vehicle was liable for his acts in accident as the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was covered under the policy. No additional premium was paid by the owner for his personal injuries or death making the Insurance Company liable for payment to his legal heirs. Keeping the aforesaid law in view, it can be held that in all cases where the claimants are able to satisfy that the deceased-owner had got policy under comprehensive package for his personal injuries or death, they are entitled to compensation for the death of the owner. Of course, the risk of pillion rider on insured scooter under comprehensive package is covered. (12) As discussed above, since the deceased in the present case had stepped into shoes of owner of the vehicle, provisions of section 163-A of the Act shall have no application wherein owner of vehicle himself is involved. Hence, legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed compensation under section 163- A of the Act. Consequently, this court does not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.