JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. (Oral) - The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 19.12.2007 in Special Claim Petition No. 22/2006, whereby the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the petition under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V.Act" for the sake of brevity) filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and thereby directed the present appellant - Insurance Company and present respondent no.3 to pay Rs. 2,17,500/jointly and severally to the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 herein along with future interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 22.3.2006 till its realization. 2. Few facts giving rise to the petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act are enumerated herein under : A] Respondent no.1 is widow, respondent no.2 is daughter and respondent no.4 is the mother of deceased Chatrapal. B] On 08.1.2006, deceased Chatrapal was proceeding towards Nagpur along Kuhi -Wadoda road on motorcycle bearing registration No. MH31/ BM3491. Chatrapal was plying the vehicle. When the vehicle was at Ambadi shivar at about 4.00 pm, the motorcycle got jumped on a speed breaker resulting into losing control of Chatrapal and he fell down. He sustained severe multiple injuries to his head. He was taken to Kuhi hospital and after receiving the first aid, he was referred to Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, however, due to the injuries he died on 18.1.2006. About the accident, an Accidental Death case No.03/2006 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was registered at Police Station, Kuhi C] Respondent no.3 herein is the owner of motorcycle and it was duly insured with the appellant - Insurance Company. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of his death and was a mechanic. He was having his own repairing shop at Ajani Chowk, Nagpur and he was earning more than Rs. 3000/per month. Respondent nos.1 and 2 being the dependents on him, by filing petition they claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/. 3. On being summoned, the owner of the motorcycle failed to attend the Court and as such the petition was proceeded exparte against him. 4. The appellant filed its written statement (Exh.15) and by filing the written statement the claim was contested. Respondent nos.1 and 2 being the dependents on him, by filing petition they claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/. 3. On being summoned, the owner of the motorcycle failed to attend the Court and as such the petition was proceeded exparte against him. 4. The appellant filed its written statement (Exh.15) and by filing the written statement the claim was contested. The appellant - Insurance Company contended in its written statement that the deceased was driving the motorcycle in most rash and negligent manner and was himself responsible for his accident. According to the written statement, deceased Chatrapal was neither the owner of the vehicle nor he was a third party and as such there was no coverage for him under the policy and therefore, claimed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Respondent no.1 - Smt. Vijaya, the widow, entered into the witness box. She proved various documents. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Smt. Sudha Maheshkar, an employee of the said Company entered into the witness box and she proved the Insurance Policy (Exh.33). The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal hold that the deceased was third party and therefore, his dependents were entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163A of the M.V.Act and granted compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/. 6. I have heard Shri B. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Shri S.S. Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 7. The foremost submission of the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company is that the petition under Section 163A of the M. V. Act at the behest of the widow and son of deceased Chatrapal was not maintainable at all, since he was not third party. He relied upon the following judgments to buttress the same point ; 1] 2008 (3) T.A.C. 263 (Bom.) HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur and another 2] 2005 (1) T.A.C. 994 (Kant.) Appaji (since deceased) and another vs. M. Krishna and another and submitted that the appeal be allowed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2/ claimants supported the impugned judgment. 9. Following are the points that fall for my determination : 1. Whether the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act was maintainable ? 2. If not, what relief the claimants are entitled ? 3. What order ? 10. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2/ claimants supported the impugned judgment. 9. Following are the points that fall for my determination : 1. Whether the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act was maintainable ? 2. If not, what relief the claimants are entitled ? 3. What order ? 10. Section 163A of the M.V. Act reads as under : 163A. 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 or 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. Explanation.-For the purposes of this subsection, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923. (2) In any claim for compensation under subsection (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. 11. From the evidence of widow, it is brought on record that the vehicle in question was owned by respondent no.3, the brother of deceased. It is the case of the claimants themselves that the deceased was selfemployed thereby completely ruling out a chance to state that he was employee of respondent no.3, the owner of the motorcycle and during the course of employment, he was driving the said motorcycle. Thus, it is crystal clear that the deceased must have borrowed the motorcycle from owner, his brother, which met with an accident. Therefore, the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Ningamma vs. United India Assurance Co. Thus, it is crystal clear that the deceased must have borrowed the motorcycle from owner, his brother, which met with an accident. Therefore, the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Ningamma vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 ] has ruled that when the deceased stepped into the shoes of owner, his legal representatives cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. This piece of facets of law was completely lost sight of by the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal and has erroneously termed the deceased as "Third Party". In view of the law laid down in Ningamma''s case by the Hon''ble Apex Court, I have to record a finding that the claim petition under Section 163A at the behest of legal representatives of deceased Chatrapal was not maintainable. 12. Having so recorded the aforesaid finding, this Court is further required to give its finding as to whether the claimants are entitled for any relief. The Motor Vehicles Act is a socio beneficial legislation. The Court is duty bound to examine as to whether the dependents of the deceased, who lost his or her life in a vehicular accident is entitled to have "just compensation". It is always open for the Court to mould the reliefs suitably. 13. In the present case, for and on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company Smt. Sudha, its employee, was examined. She testified before the Court that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant and the period of insurance was in between 11.5.2005 and 10.5.2006, which covers the date of accident. She also states that it was the comprehensive policy. According to her evidence, the policy was applicable to the ownercumdriver of the vehicle. The insurance policy is at Exh.33. Perusal of the policy shows that a premium of Rs. 50/was received by the Insurance Company towards Compulsory PA to Owner-cum-Driver to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/. 14. In the present case, no offence for rash and negligent driving was registered at Police Station, Kuhi against deceased Chatrapal. Only an accidental death proceedings under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide A.D. No.3/2006 were registered (Exh.21). Exh.22 is the spot panchanama, a contemporaneous document. 1,00,000/. 14. In the present case, no offence for rash and negligent driving was registered at Police Station, Kuhi against deceased Chatrapal. Only an accidental death proceedings under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide A.D. No.3/2006 were registered (Exh.21). Exh.22 is the spot panchanama, a contemporaneous document. Perusal of the said panchanama shows that due to bump, the deceased fell on the ground and received the injuries. Thus, it is crystal clear that the deceased was not rash or negligent while driving the motorcycle. It appears that unfortunately due to accident involving a vehicle he fell on the ground in which ultimately after receipt of severe injuries, he lost his life. 15. Once this Court has recorded a finding while reaching to the conclusion that petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act was not maintainable since the dependents have stepped into the shoes of owner inasmuch as the deceased himself has stepped into the shoes of owner after he borrowed motorcycle for him, in my view, he is covered under the policy (Exh.33). Even in Ningamma''s case, the Hon''ble Apex Court has found that though the claimants were not entitled to maintain application under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, it was the duty of the High Court to consider the claim of the claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. In that view of the matter, since the Insurance Company has obtained the premium for compulsory PA to Ownercum Driver and the liability was limited to Rs. 1,00,000/, to that extent, respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to receive compensation from the appellant. Consequently, I record the finding accordingly insofar as issue no.2 is concerned. 16. Conspectus of the aforesaid discussion leads me to pass the following order : ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The judgment and award passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 19.12.2007 in Special Claim Petition No. 22/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. It is held that the claim petition under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as filed was not maintainable. 4. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to receive a compensation for Rs. 1,00,000/together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 22.3.2006 till its actual realization. 5. There shall be no order as to costs.