JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, the said Act) has been preferred by the Insurance Company as it is aggrieved by the judgment of the Claims Tribunal directing it to pay an amount of Rs.1,89,500/- as compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant that the husband of the claimant no.1 - Vijay was proceeding on a motor cycle owned by the respondent No.7 herein to Wardha. On the way a monkey jumped down from a tree near the road as a result of which said Vijay fell down from his vehicle and succumbed to his injuries. Compensation was accordingly claimed for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- under Section 163A of the said Act. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased was not a third party as no other vehicle was involved and hence there was no liability to satisfy the claim. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,89,500/- towards compensation. 3. Shri B. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was an admitted fact that the accident occurred when the deceased fell down from the vehicle which he was driving as a monkey had jumped near the road. No other vehicle was involved. The deceased could not be said to be a third party. Relying upon the decision in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 3 TAC 13 it was submitted that under provisions of Section 163-A of the said Act, if the person who has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle makes a claim, he cannot be granted compensation under Section 163-A of the said Act. It was further held therein that under Section 163-A of the said Act just compensation was liable to be granted in terms of the Insurance Policy. The learned Counsel submitted that as per the Insurance Policy amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid as premium towards compulsory PA to the owner/driver and the risk covered was for Rs.1,00,000/-. At the highest that amount could be awarded and not the amount of compensation as granted. 4. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 on 10-1-2019. There is no appearance on their behalf even today. 5. At the highest that amount could be awarded and not the amount of compensation as granted. 4. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 on 10-1-2019. There is no appearance on their behalf even today. 5. The following point arises for consideration: Whether the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is liable to be interfered with? 6. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred as the deceased who was riding the motor cycle owned by the respondent No.7 fell down as a monkey from a nearby tree jumped near the said vehicle. No other vehicle was involved in the said accident. The claim in question has been filed under Section 163-A of the said Act. In Ningamma and another (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the legal representatives of a person who was driving a motorcycle after borrowing it from the real owner meets with an accident without there being any other vehicle would be entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the said Act. It was held that in such circumstances the legal representatives of the deceased who has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the said Act. The aforesaid ratio clearly applies to the case in hand. It is thus held that the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A of the said Act. 7. At the same time, as observed in the aforesaid judgment, under Section 166 of the said Act the claimants are entitled for just compensation. Under the Insurance Policy in view of the premium as paid the risk covered for the owner - driver in such circumstances was Rs.1,00,000/-. To that extent, the claimants can be granted just compensation. The impugned judgment to that extent is liable to be modified. The point as framed is answered by holding that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of the risk of the owner as covered. 8. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: (1) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal dated 20-11- 2006 in MACP No.102/2005 is partly modified. It is held that the claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of Insurance Policy at Exhibit-32. 8. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: (1) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal dated 20-11- 2006 in MACP No.102/2005 is partly modified. It is held that the claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of Insurance Policy at Exhibit-32. During pendency of the appeal, the claimants have withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The claimants are thus entitled to receive balance amount of Rs.50,000/- with accrued interest from the appellant. The amount lying in deposit shall be made over to the claimants subject to appropriate calculations. (2) Needless to state that if there is any short fall in completing that amount of Rs.50,000/- the same would be paid by the appellant. (3) The First Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.