JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal From Order has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the impugned award dated 28.4.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 6, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') awarding a total sum of Rs. 14,50,000/- in favour of respondents-claimants No. 1/1 to 1/4 i.e. legal heirs and representatives of claimant-Harpal Singh (since deceased). 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that deceased Harpal Singh borrowed Scorpio car bearing Registration No. U.P. 93 P/0100 from his relative and was going from Jhansi to Lalitpur. He had a valid driving license. When he reached near Tekri Village, Police Station-Talbehat at about 1:10 a.m., front tyre of car burst and hence he lost the control and car overturned causing grievous injury to the injured claimant-Harpal Singh. He was admitted in the Talbehat Hospital including Medical College Jhansi, Neurology Hospital Gwalior and Max Hospital, New Delhi. During treatment after 7 months, the claimant died, hence his heirs/legal representatives were impleaded. A total amount of Rs. 15 lacs was paid towards medical expenses and other expenses for care of the patient. 4. The deceased was a farmer and also Security Guard from which he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The case of the claimant was that due to accident the claimant was not in position to work, which has affected his family, since the claimant was the only earning member of the family, hence the family was facing shortage of fund to fulfil even necessary needs. 5. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 27,75,000/- with interest of 12% per annum from the date of moving the claim petition with further prayer to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in view of the Provision under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1988). 6. Considering the case of the claimants, vide impugned award dated 28.4.2015, Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,50,000/-, out of which Rs. 5 lacs was awarded in favour of Smt. Kashi Devi, wife of the deceased, Rs. 4 lacs was awarded in favour of Kumari Gaurvi, daughter of the deceased, Rs. 4 lacs was awarded in favour of Guarav, son of the deceased and Rs. 14,50,000/-, out of which Rs. 5 lacs was awarded in favour of Smt. Kashi Devi, wife of the deceased, Rs. 4 lacs was awarded in favour of Kumari Gaurvi, daughter of the deceased, Rs. 4 lacs was awarded in favour of Guarav, son of the deceased and Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded in favour of Smt. Laxmi Devi, mother of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that the injured/deceased Harpal Singh was not owner of the vehicle insured with the appellant-insurance company. He was relative of the owner and borrower of the vehicle and hence since he was not the owner of the vehicle and as such there was no liability of the appellant-insurance company. The claim was under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and the borrower of the vehicle stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such the borrower/deceased or his legal representatives would not be entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and in view of the Provision of Act, 1988 the owner himself cannot get compensation. He has further submitted that the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, however at the most the award could have been awarded to the accident or coverage as applicable to the owner/driver, since the premium appears to have been paid for the said coverage. It was further submitted that the bills/vouchers submitted by the claimants was verified for Rs. 7,14,219, but the Tribunal illegally awarded compensation of Rs. 10 lacs towards the expenses, which was highly excessive and without any reliable proof. Hence impugned award is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for Insurance Company relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 ACJ 2020 (Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited). Learned counsel for claimants-respondents submitted that the borrower of the vehicle stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such he will also be entitled for the compensation, as if the vehicle was being driven by the owner, hence he was entitled to claim compensation under the Act, 1988. 9. Even if Section 163-A is not applicable, on the ground of mentioning the wrong Section, relief has not to be refused to the claimants even otherwise if they are entitled under other Sections. The insurance of the vehicle was the package insurance. 9. Even if Section 163-A is not applicable, on the ground of mentioning the wrong Section, relief has not to be refused to the claimants even otherwise if they are entitled under other Sections. The insurance of the vehicle was the package insurance. Since owner was entitled for compensation in case of accident and as such borrower will also be entitled for compensation. 10. As far as insurance of vehicle is concerned the findings have been recorded by the Tribunal that there was package policy, hence owner/driver of the vehicle was covered with the insurance policy, but the same is required to be examined according to the condition of the policy with regard to the quantum of compensation. 11. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. As far as objection that the application was moved under Section 163-A is concerned, if the claimant was entitled for the compensation then on the ground of wrong section relief was not to be refused, rather the same has to be considered on merit of the case. The borrower of the vehicle i.e. deceased Harpal Singh stepped into the shoes of owner, the borrower was authorized person by the owner for the use of the vehicle, hence if the owner is entitled for compensation under the Act, 1988 considering the condition of the policy, then borrower of the vehicle and legal representatives of the deceased would also be entitled for compensation. The compensation has not to be refused merely on the ground that application was not moved mentioning the correct Section of Act, 1988 and it was required to be considered by the Tribunal that claimants were entitled for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 or under Section 147 read with Section 166 of the Act, 1988. 13. Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 of the judgment of Ningamma (Supra) are quoted hereinbelow :- "18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736 , wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736 , wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. 19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 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. 21. Section 147 of the MVA provides that the policy of insurance could also cover cases against any liability which may be incurred by the insurer in respect of death or fatal injury to any person including owner of the vehicle or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or arising out of the use of vehicle in the public place. 22. When we analyze the impugned judgment of the High Court in terms of aforesaid discussion, we find that the counsel for the insurance company himself contended before the High Court that the policy of insurance was an Act policy and the risk that is covered is only in respect of persons contemplated under Section 147 of the MVA. It is the finding of fact which we have also upheld in this Judgment that the deceased was authorised by the owner of the vehicle to drive the vehicle. When we examined the facts of the present case in view of the aforesaid submission made, we are of the opinion that such an issue was required to be considered by the High Court in the light of the facts and evidence adduced in the case. When we examined the facts of the present case in view of the aforesaid submission made, we are of the opinion that such an issue was required to be considered by the High Court in the light of the facts and evidence adduced in the case. On consideration of the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court we find the same to be sketchy on the aforesaid issue as to whether the claim could be considered under the provisions of Section 166 of the MVA. In this connection, reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi and Others (supra), wherein, it was held that where compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. 24. There are indeed cases like New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 417 , wherein, the son of the owner was driving the vehicle, who died in the accident, was not regarded as third party. In the said case the court held that neither Section 163-A nor Section 166 would be applicable. 25. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with "Just Compensation" and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under Section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting "Just Compensation" in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to award "Just Compensation" irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. However, whether or not the claimants would be governed with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whether or not the provisions of Section 147 of the MVA would be applicable in the present case and also whether or not there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, are essentially a matter of fact which was required to be considered and answered at least by the High Court." 14. As discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ningamma (Supra), if person authorized by the owner of the vehicle, as in the present borrower of the vehicle i.e. deceased stepped into the shoes of owner under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. The provision for payment of compensation by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as per schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. As far as negligence part is concerned that has not be examined under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. There is use of the motor vehicle. Apart from that in the present case, the accident took place as tyre of the car burst, hence driver lost the control over the car. Since, the claim under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 is against the owner of the motor vehicle or against the authorized insurer, hence if the owner cannot claim compensation against himself under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, then how the borrower, who stepped into the shoes of the owner could be entitled for the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. Hence, in view of the judgment in case of Ningamma (Supra) and as per Provision of the Act, 1988, it is clear that the claimants-respondents were not entitled for the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. 15. In view of the abovenoted judgment in Ningamma (Supra) itself the claimant/legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled for the compensation arising out of the accident by Scorpio, which was insured with the appellant-insurance company in view of Section 166 of the Act, 1988. Hence, the Tribunal is required to consider the award just and reasonable irrespective to the fact that under which Section application was moved and what was the compensation amount claimed by the legal representatives of the deceased or injured under Section 147 of the Act, 1988. 16. Hence, the Tribunal is required to consider the award just and reasonable irrespective to the fact that under which Section application was moved and what was the compensation amount claimed by the legal representatives of the deceased or injured under Section 147 of the Act, 1988. 16. It was admitted fact that the deceased has borrowed the vehicle from his relative, hence he was authorized by the owner to drive the vehicle at the time of accident in the light of the condition of the insurance policy and as such the impugned award dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The matter is, therefore, remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants-appellants in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks and not later than two months after furnishing certified copy of this order. 17. The office is directed to send back the lower court records of the case to the concerned Tribunal immediately. 18. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is allowed.