JUDGMENT : Dismissal of the claim petition preferred under 'Section 163A' of the Motor Vehicles Act [herein after referred to as the 'Act' for short] holding that the claimants are not liable to be compensated in respect of the death of their son, who was riding the motor cycle at the relevant time, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3056 : 2009 ACJ 2020 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 2. The deceased rider of the motor cycle was riding a two wheeler on 07.08.2001, when the vehicle suddenly overturned causing fatal injuries leading to death of the rider. Claim petition was filed by the appellants [widow and minor son of the deceased] under Section 163A of the Act; where the parents of the deceased were shown as respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Contending that the deceased, aged 28 years was having a monthly income of Rs. 3000/-, compensation was claimed to an extent of Rs. 6 lakhs. The owner of the motorcycle and the parents of the deceased [respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 respectively] were set ex-parte. The insurer disputed the liability, challenging the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, besides contending that the deceased was riding the vehicle without a valid driving licence and there was breach on the part of the first respondent/insured in this regard. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. The Tribunal held that the claim petition was maintainable under Section 163A of the Act, however, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra], it was held that the deceased who was riding the motor cycle belonging to the first respondent at the relevant time virtually stepped into the shoes of the owner/insured and was not liable to be compensated in any manner. It was accordingly, that the claim petition was dismissed, which is sought to be challenged by the appellants/claimants in this appeal. 3. The main ground raised in the memorandum of appeal is that the Tribunal was not correct or justified in relying on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra]. It was accordingly, that the claim petition was dismissed, which is sought to be challenged by the appellants/claimants in this appeal. 3. The main ground raised in the memorandum of appeal is that the Tribunal was not correct or justified in relying on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra]. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the policy involved in Ningamma's case [cited supra] was an 'Act only Policy', whereas the policy involved herein is a 'Comprehensive Policy'. A copy of the said policy, with the terms and conditions, is placed for perusal of this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent insurer submits that the idea and understanding of the appellants as to the scope of the verdict in Ningamma's case [cited supra] and its applicability to the present scenario is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. The question considered by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra] was whether a rider of the motor cycle was entitled for any compensation, treating him as a 3rd party'; which was answered in the negative. This being the position whether the policy is an 'Act Policy' or a 'Comprehensive policy' is not at all relevant, submits the learned counsel. It is further pointed out that the policy issued in the instant case [Exts. B1 and B2] did not cover the risk of the rider and no additional premium was collected in this regard, to provide any personal accident coverage to the insured. 5. Coming to the law declared by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra], it has been specifically held that the insured/person riding the motor cycle will not be a 3rd party' and that such rider who rides the motor cycle after borrowing it from the insured will step into the shoes of the insured. What is required to be insured mandatorily as per Section 147 of the Act is the liability towards 3rd party' and if at all anybody else is to be covered, particularly, the insured [whose liability towards 3rd party' is agreed to be satisfied by the insurer], wider coverage has to be obtained paying additional premium. There is no concept of owner/insured becoming liable to pay compensation to himself under any circumstances and as such, no liability can be shifted to the shoulders of the insured. 6. There is no concept of owner/insured becoming liable to pay compensation to himself under any circumstances and as such, no liability can be shifted to the shoulders of the insured. 6. It is true that Section 163A of the Act stands on a different footing and by virtue of sub Section (2) of the said provision, the claimant is not required to plead or prove negligence and compensation has to be awarded as per the 2nd schedule. But it was held by the Apex Court two decades ago that the second schedule is full of mistakes, which hence was directed to be corrected by amending the Statute as per the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra [1996 (2) KLR 218 (SC)]. Several other verdicts also came to be passed later, in similar lines including in Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [ 2010 (1) KLT 774 ]. 7. A question arose for consideration before the Apex Court, as to whether the liability can still be mulcted on the insurer under Section 163A of the Act, if the negligence on the part of the injured/deceased was specifically pleaded and proved by the insurer, notwithstanding the fact that there is no such burden on the part of the claimant to plead or prove negligence in getting compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The question was answered in the 'negative' by the Apex Court as per the verdict in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sinitha [ 2011 (4) KLT 821 ] holding that the specific bar under sub Section 4 of Section 140 of the Act [precluding the defence from defeating a claim for reasons of fault] is conspicuously absent/omitted while drafting Section 163A by the law makers. However, the said decision was subsequently doubted by a co-ordinate Bench and it was referred to Larger Bench. The Larger Bench has recently answered the reference as per the verdict passed in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sunil Kumar and another [ 2017 (4) KLT 1093 : 2017 KHC 5644] that Insurance Company cannot raise or establish a defence with reference to negligence in a claim under Section 163A of the Act. The Larger Bench has recently answered the reference as per the verdict passed in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sunil Kumar and another [ 2017 (4) KLT 1093 : 2017 KHC 5644] that Insurance Company cannot raise or establish a defence with reference to negligence in a claim under Section 163A of the Act. Be that as it may, the question involved in the present appeal is not with reference to the scope of Section 163A, but as to the status of a person riding the vehicle and gets injured himself. It is in respect of this situation, that the legal position has made clear by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra] holding that such rider will step into the shoes of the insured and that the insurer is not liable to compensate him. 8. There is no dispute, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants, that no compensation can be claimed by the appellants/claimants under the 'Act Policy' giving statutory coverage alone. The contention is that, there is a 'wider coverage', by virtue of the fact that the policy is a 'Comprehensive Policy'. Hence, what is 'comprehensive', is the next question. 9. The Apex Court as per the decision in New Indian Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Prabhadevi (2013) 14 SCC 719 made a reference to the dictum laid down earlier in Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited [ (2004) 8 SCC 553 ] and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunitha Rathi [(1998) (1) SCC 365] and held that no liability could be shifted to shoulders of the Insurance Company, in the absence of wider coverage if any, on payment of additional premium. Coming to the contention of the appellants that there was wider coverage, it being a 'Comprehensive policy', the schedule of premium and the extent of coverage are discernible from the copy of policy, which is extracted, as given below :- SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM A) OWN DAMAGE – BASIC 80.OO B) LIABILITY TO PUBLIC – BASIC 77.OO ADD. OWN DAMAGE – SURCHARGE NCB/MALLUS : ADD. 410.OO ADD. TPPD COVER FOR UNLIMITED AMOUNT ADD. 50.OO TOTAL OF A Rs.490.00 TOTAL OF B Rs.127.00 TOTAL PREMIUM (A + B) Rs.617.00 NET PREMIUM Rs.617.00 Service Tax Rs. OWN DAMAGE – SURCHARGE NCB/MALLUS : ADD. 410.OO ADD. TPPD COVER FOR UNLIMITED AMOUNT ADD. 50.OO TOTAL OF A Rs.490.00 TOTAL OF B Rs.127.00 TOTAL PREMIUM (A + B) Rs.617.00 NET PREMIUM Rs.617.00 Service Tax Rs. 31.00 Total Collection Rs.648.00 The premium collected over and above for providing statutory coverage under Section 147 of the Act, is only for the 'own damage' to the vehicle, besides the premium for unlimited 3rd party property damage. No premium has been collected towards the 'personal accident liability' of the insured or rider of the vehicle. 10. A contention is put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants, that by virtue of the wordings in the conditions of the policy – Section II, there is liability for the insurer to satisfy the claim in respect of “any person”. The said clause reads as follows : “ SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES (1) Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of Motor Cycle against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the Motor Cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. (ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or hold in trust by or in the custody or control of the insured or any member of the insured's household or being conveyed by the Motor Cycle. Provided that company shall not be liable in respect of death, injury or damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriage way or thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of the load to the Motor Cycle for loading thereon or taking away of the load from the Motor Cycle after unloading therefrom.” 11. Obviously, the heading of 'Section II' itself says that it is in respect of the 'liability to 3rd parties'. As held by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra] and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joseph V.V. @ Johny and Others [ 2012 (2) KHC 1 ], the insured is not 3rd party and rider of the motor cycle will step into the shoes of the insured. As held by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra] and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joseph V.V. @ Johny and Others [ 2012 (2) KHC 1 ], the insured is not 3rd party and rider of the motor cycle will step into the shoes of the insured. This position stands in tact. The liability undertaken by the insurer is to “Indemnify the insured”, to meet the claim because of the accident which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of the cause involving death or bodily injury to a person including the person conveyed in or on the motor cycle, provided that such person is not carried for hire or reward; or in respect of the property; to the extent as specified therein. The accident on riding a motorcycle by the owner/insured was declared as not an instance to be covered by the insurer, by the Apex Court, in New India Assurance Company Vs. Sadanand Mukhi [ (2009) 2 SCC 417 ]. The purpose and object of the Statute and the scope of contractual insurance were explained in categoric terms, holding that when the owner of the vehicle is proposed to be covered, additional premium is required to be paid. There is no legal liability for the insured, to satisfy any claim to himself and as such, the term 'any person' mentioned under the clause extracted above does not take in the insured or rider of the motor cycle, who has stepped into the shoes of the insured - as held by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra]. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the rider of the motorcycle is never a 3rd party' and in the instant case, no wider coverage was provided in respect of him, by paying any additional premium. The verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of law and it does not warrant any interference. Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.