JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'the Insurance Company'). Also heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 20-12-2012, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, in the MAC Case No.71/2009. 3. The brief facts of the case is that one Smti Momi Boruah preferred a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, praying for compensation for the death of her husband Pradip Boruah, in a motor vehicle accident on 16.12.2008, involving the vehicle No.AS-07/C-0119 (winger). The deceased was the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle and the same was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R. Goswami pointed out that the present claim has been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased who was the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle who died in the accident, was not a third party in the said case and being a policy holder, he is not entitle to the amount against the premium so paid by him, under the policy i.e. Rs. 2 lakh. 5. However, the claim has been preferred by the wife of the said deceased (owner cum driver of the vehicle), under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, whereas such a claim petition could have been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased before the Insurance Company for realization of the amount, so entitled. 6. Mr. K.R. Patgiri, the learned counsel for the respondent is also agreeable to the said position that the deceased was the owner cum driver of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is also stated that the deceased had the requisite driving license at the time of incident. 7. It may be mentioned that the claimant Smti Momi Boruah preferred the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming for compensation of Rs. The vehicle was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is also stated that the deceased had the requisite driving license at the time of incident. 7. It may be mentioned that the claimant Smti Momi Boruah preferred the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming for compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/-, for the death of her husband Pradip Boruah in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.12.2008, in front of Subansiri College at Milanpur on National Highway 52, under Boginodi P.S. It was her case that while driving the vehicle by the said Pradip Boruah, bearing registration No.AS-07/C-0119 (winger), the vehicle slipped of the road and dashed against a road side tree resulting the death of her husband on the spot. 8. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing their written statement that the claim for death of owner/driver of the vehicle under the P.A. coverage and cannot be settled in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the nominee and the legal heirs of the deceased can apply for the same directly from the Insurance Company. 9. The learned Tribunal however decided the matter ignoring the submissions that was made by the Insurance Company. 10. It is a settled position of law that the owner cum driver of the vehicle is the first party and he is liable only to the benefit under the policy and the Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the third party and at any stress of imagination, the owner cannot be a third party to prefer a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. 11. By referring to the decision rendered in (Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (2009) AIR SC 3056) and (New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others, (2009) AIR SC 1788), it has been submitted that when the driver is the owner of the vehicle in that case, the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation, as the liability to pay the same is on him. 12. Ltd, (2009) AIR SC 3056) and (New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others, (2009) AIR SC 1788), it has been submitted that when the driver is the owner of the vehicle in that case, the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation, as the liability to pay the same is on him. 12. In New India Assurance Company Ltd., similar situation has been discussed, where the motorcycle was taken out by the son of the insured/owner and while riding the motor cycle, the son met with an accident resulting death, it was held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation, as the deceased does not come within the purview of the term person within Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Insurer would be liable to cover the risk of 3rd party and not the others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. 13. In Nigamma and another, it has been discussed where the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle in question but he borrowed the same from its real owner, the said deceased cannot be held to be an employee under the owner of the motor bike although he was authorized to drive the vehicle by its owner and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motor bike. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle would not have claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. 14. The present case is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the legal heir of the deceased is entitled to the same under the P.A. coverage i.e. Rs. 2 lakh and the Insurance Company is agreeable to pay the said amount. However the claimant being the wife of the deceased, has prayed for certain amount on account of interest for the long delay in disposal of the matter, while the occurrence took place on 16.12.2008 and decided on 2012 and still the claimant did not get any sort of compensation. 15. Taking into account all above, the present appeal stands disposed of with direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of Rs. 2 lakh, before the Registry of the High Court under the P.A. coverage, within a period of two months. 15. Taking into account all above, the present appeal stands disposed of with direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of Rs. 2 lakh, before the Registry of the High Court under the P.A. coverage, within a period of two months. In making the deposit, the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to adjust the amount, if already paid to the claimant. In addition to the above, the Insurance Company shall consider the prayer so made by the claimant, for extending further compensation which is permissible under the terms and conditions of the policy. It is ordered accordingly. 16. The appeal stands disposed of with above direction. Return the LCR immediately.