JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - This appeal is preferred by the Insurance company questioning the validity of the judgment and award passed by the II Additional MACT, Belagavi, dated 19.02.2009, in MVC No.990/2004. 2. Germane of the facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under : It is contended in the claim petition that on 07.04.2004 at about 10.45 p.m. one Bhau Balu Patil was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/S-7343 from Desur towards Alathige. When he reached near Zad Shahapur village he dashed to the road side tree and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi and took treatment as inpatient for 15 days and took follow up treatment. It is also his case that he has also spent large amount of money for his treatment and as a painter he was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. 3. It is his case that after taking treatment, he was not in a position to attend to his work on regular basis and there was continued treatment. 4. Ultimately, he was discharged from the hospital and he continued the treatment as an out patient. For the injuries sustained by him, he lodged a claim petition. When the claim petition was pending adjudication before the tribunal, the injured Bhau Balu Patil died on 23.06.2006. Later on, his legal representatives were brought on record before the tribunal. 5. On issuance of notice, the second respondent Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement denying the claim petition averments. After the death of the original claimant, the legal representatives were brought on record. But, subsequent to that there was no further written statement on record. 6. In view of the death of the sole claimant(injured) the tribunal re-casted the issue as under : 1. Whether the present petitioners prove that the death of the original petitioner was due to the accidental injuries? 7. In order to prove the issue, Sewanta mother of Bhau Balu Patil, was examined as PW1 and Dr.Annasaheb B. Patil who treated the injured got examined as PW2 and eye witness to accident Mr.Anil G.Patil got examined as as PW3. The legal heirs of the original claimant also relied on 54 documents, which are marked before the tribunal as Ex.P1 to P54. 8. On behalf of respondents there was no oral evidence, but the copy of the policy is marked at Ex.R1. The legal heirs of the original claimant also relied on 54 documents, which are marked before the tribunal as Ex.P1 to P54. 8. On behalf of respondents there was no oral evidence, but the copy of the policy is marked at Ex.R1. 9. After hearing the counsels for the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal allowed the claim petition and granted a sum of Rs.3,08,589/- with interest 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization as total compensation as under : 1 Loss of dependency 2,72,000/- 2 Funeral expenses, transportation of dead body and other miscellaneous expenses 10,000/- 3 Medical bills 13,505/- (Hospital expenses 8680+4404) 13,084/- TOTAL 3,08,589/- 10. It is that judgment, which is under challenge before this court. 11. The learned counsel Sri. M.K. Soudagar vehemently contended that the tribunal grossly erred in answering recasted issue in favour of the legal heirs of the claimants as there was no material to establish the fact that the death of Bhau Balu Patil was on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident dated 07.04.2004. 12. It is his specific case that for the injury that was sustained by him he took treatment in the hospital and got discharged and he was hale and healthy. Thereafter, on account of some other health complications he died. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have answered recasted issue in favour of insurance company and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 13. Alternatively, he also submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A. Therefore, the adjudged compensation should not have been more than Rs.1,00,000/- having regard to the policy terms and conditions. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri contended that the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the death is on account of injury sustained by Bhau Balu Patil and therefore, the appeal is to be dismissed. 15. It is his case that even though Bhau Balu Patil discharged from the hospital he was under continuous treatment as an outpatient and because of injuries sustained by him in the accident, he never covered from the injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injury on 23.03.2006, which fact is taken note of the tribunal in its right perspective and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 16. 16. Insofar as quantum is concerned, Sri. S.S. Katageri, learned counsel vehemently contended that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A and later on the injured succumbed to the injuries. As such, the adjudged compensation is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 17. In reply, Sri. M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company, on the quantum issue relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Others V/s. The United India Insurance company and others, (2020) 2 SCC 550 submitted that as per the said judgment, as per the policy terms the maximum award could be is only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, in the event this court holding that there exists nexus between the death of Bhau Balu Patil and accidental injuries, the quantum is to be restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the points would arise for consideration are : 1. Whether the appellant makes out a case that there was no nexus between the accidental injuries and death of Bhau Balu Patil on 23.03.2006? 2. Whether the appellant makes out a case modification of the adjudged compensation? 19. Answer to the above points are negative and affirmative respectively for the following : REASONS 20. It is not in dispute that on 07.04.2004 at about 10.45 p.m. one Bhau Balu Patil was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/S-7343 on Belgaum- Khanapur road within the limits of Zad Shahapur village. It is also found from the records that he dashed against the tree and sustained grievous injuries. The evidence of claimants coupled with oral evidence of PW3 who is an eye witness to the accident, clearly establishes the fact of accident. 21. Later on, he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi took treatment as an inpatient for 15 days and thereafter took follow up treatment on regular basis. 22. When the matter stood thus, a claim petition came to be filed by the original claimant under Section 163A seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 23. During the pendency of the claim petition, Sri. Bhau Balu Patil died on 23.03.2006. On record, the death certificate is produced and marked as Ex.P8, cause of death is marked at Ex.P11. When the matter stood thus, a claim petition came to be filed by the original claimant under Section 163A seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 23. During the pendency of the claim petition, Sri. Bhau Balu Patil died on 23.03.2006. On record, the death certificate is produced and marked as Ex.P8, cause of death is marked at Ex.P11. In Ex.P11, it has been mentioned that the cause of death is due to "PYOGENIC MENINGITIS WITH CEREBRAL OEDEMA WITH SECONDARY TO BRAIN STEM DYSFUNCTION" 24. It is pertinent to note that before the death, he was inpatient with I.P.No.180189, was admitted in the hospital on 18.03.2006. 25. The Doctor who examined before the tribunal as PW2 Annasaheb B. Patil in his examination in chief has stated in para No.3 about cause of death in clear and categorical terms. In his cross examination, it has been elicited that he is not the person who treated the person soon before his death. He has denied the suggestion that the separate injury to the head of the Bhau Balu Patil resulted in death. 26. Therefore on record, there was sufficient material to connect the injury sustained by Bhau Balu Patil and his death. Further, there was no contra evidence placed by the Insurance company to hold that there was no nexus between the injury sustained by Bhau Balu Patil and his death. 27. It is needless to emphasise that Insurance company having taken such a defence, it was required to place some plausible evidence to prove that the death was not on account of injury sustained by Bhau Balu Patil on account of the accident. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence, this court is satisfied that initial burden has been discharged by the claimants. Therefore, this court does not find any serious infirmities in the finding recorded by the tribunal on the racasted issue that there exists nexus between death of Bhau Balu Patil and accidental injuries sustained by him. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions, point No.1 is answered in the negative. 29. This takes to the next limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Sri. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions, point No.1 is answered in the negative. 29. This takes to the next limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Sri. M.K. Soudagar specifically contended that the rider of the motorcycle being not the owner of the motorcycle, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle being the borrower and therefore, the liability, if any, in the accident should be restricted to terms of policy. He further submits that in a given case of this nature Insurance companies contractual liability is strictly as per policy conditions. In this regard, he also relied upon the decision in the case of Ramklhiladi supra. 30. But, to counter the said submissions, Sri. S.S.Katageri, learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants contended that even though principles of law enunciated in Ramkhiladi supra to be made applicable to the case, since there was no second vehicle involved in the accident and motorcycle dashed against the tree, finding of the tribunal needs no interference. 31. In Ramakhiladi supra the Hon'ble Apex Court did not described the finding recorded in Ningamma's case and specifically held that a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be pressed into service. Where the borrower of a motorcycle is the deceased or injured. The Hon'ble Apex Court, observed that when a borrower steps into the shoes of the owner, the liability incurred by the Insurance company should be restricted to the terms of the policy and necessarily the policy conditions are to be examined. 32. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to the contract of Insurance has held as under : "5.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and Order has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018, i.e., much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 33. In the present case also, on perusal of Ex.R1 policy, it is crystal clear that the claim, if any, limited to maximum of Rs.1.00 lakh on account of personal injury to the owner of the vehicle. 34. The tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation independent of terms of the policy conditions. Therefore, the same cannot be countenanced in law. 35. Law on the point, as in enunciated in Ramakhiladi's case is clearly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case in limiting liability as per policy condition as it is contractual obligation. 36. In view of the clear conditions in the policy limiting liability to the extent of Rs.1.00 lakh, any amount exceeding Rs.1.00 lakh is legally not sustainable in view of the fact that obligation that is to be met by the Insurance company in the present case is contractual obligation. 37. In view of the foregoing discussions, the point No.2 needs to be answered in the affirmative. 38. At this juncture, Sri. M.K. Soudagar submits that the entire adjudged compensation along with interest is deposited before this court vide endorsement dated 03.08.2011 in the order sheet. On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that a sum of Rs.3,86,903/- and statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- is already made before this court. 39. In view of answer of this court on point Nos.1 and 2, the following order is passed. On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that a sum of Rs.3,86,903/- and statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- is already made before this court. 39. In view of answer of this court on point Nos.1 and 2, the following order is passed. ORDER Appeal is allowed. In modification of the award passed by the tribunal in MVC No.990/2004, it is ordered that the legal heirs of Bhau Balu Patil are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. In view of the fact that the adjudged compensation amount is now modified and limited to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, the appellant-Insurance company is at liberty to withdraw the balance amount from the registry. The said amount may be refunded to the Insurance company after due identification. Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest shall be transmitted to the tribunal to facilitate for the claimants to withdraw the amount. Draw modified award accordingly.