JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the liability cast upon on it by the Tribunal to pay the compensation amount in MVC No. 507/2008. 2. The claim petition would disclose that on 26.03.2004 at about 9.00 p.m. the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-18/E-7440 along with one K. K. Uttam as pillion. It is stated that as a vehicle was coming from the opposite direction with bright lights on, the motor cycle was guided to the left side of the road which dashed against the road side tree resulting in the death of the deceased. The appellant was the insurer, while the respondent No. 4 was the owner of the motor cycle. The claimants are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the respondents. 3. The Tribunal calculated the compensation payable under Section 163 (A) of Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Insofar as the question of liability is concerned, the Tribunal held that since the vehicle was covered with an insurance policy and since the accident occurred not due to the negligence on the part of the driver, the Tribunal cast the liability upon the insurer to pay the compensation amount. It is this that is challenged by the insurer in this appeal. 4. The sole contention urged by the insurer in this appeal is that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle in question from the respondent No. 4 and at the relevant point of time, the deceased was riding a vehicle and therefore stepped into the shoes of owner/insured. Consequently, the claimant could not make a claim for compensation and their only entitlement would be to the personal accident cover for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer contended that there is law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi V/s United Insurance Co, (2020) 2 SCC 550 . Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant contended that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle and the accident was caused due to an oncoming vehicle with its headlight, which blinded the rider. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant contended that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle and the accident was caused due to an oncoming vehicle with its headlight, which blinded the rider. Therefore it is contended that the petition will have to be considered under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act and that the Tribunal has precisely done it and has rightly granted the compensation. 6. The Apex Court while considering the petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, at the behest of a person who had borrowed a motor cycle held that:: 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. 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. 7. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000-00 as per the terms of the contract of insurance as the driver stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In that view of the matter, the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal insofar as imposing liability to pay the compensation upon the insurer, is liable to be set aside and instead a sum of Rs. 5,25,000-00 awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000-00 to the claimants is awarded towards the personal accident cover. 8. Hence this appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The appellant-insurer is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,25,000-00 awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000-00 to the claimants is awarded towards the personal accident cover. 8. Hence this appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The appellant-insurer is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000-00 to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 9. Consequently, the insurer shall deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for necessary orders.