JUDGMENT : 1. This First Appeal is filed by the appellant – Insurance Company under Section 173 read with 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.816 of 2008, by which the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,44,508/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition holding appellant and respondent no.10 jointly and severally liable. 2. It is the case of that on 09.10.2008, deceased Dilipsinh Sardarsinh Bhuria having borrowed motorcycle of respondent no.10, was driving the said motorcycle on 09.10.2008 and met with an accident as the said Motorcycle ran over a stone whereby it got slipped and the deceased sustained injuries and died. 3. The claimants, being heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased, filed claim petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 for seeking compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- against owner - opponent no.1 and Insurance Company – opponent no.2. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the deceased borrowed the vehicle – Motorcycle of the respondent no.10 – owner of the vehicle and thereby stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, it is submitted that since the owner, not being third party, is not entitled to seek compensation, the deceased stepped into the shoes of owner of the vehicle is also not a third party and therefore, heirs of the said deceased are not entitled to seek compensation. He further submitted that there is neither statutory liability nor contractual liability on the part of the appellant since the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability on the appellant. 5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that since the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident, the claimants are not entitled for compensation for the wrong committed by the deceased. It is submitted that Tribunal erred in interpreting the Section 163 A and thereby, erred in law. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi V/s. United India Insurance Company, 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65585 :(2020) (2) SCC 550, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In paragraph no.5.5. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi V/s. United India Insurance Company, 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65585 :(2020) (2) SCC 550, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In paragraph no.5.5. and paragraph no.5.6 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the claim case filed under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act by the heirs of the deceased (who was riding the vehicle as a borrower of the vehicle) against the owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle, the deceased would be in the shoes of the owner and hence, such a claim was not maintainable as the deceased cannot be said to be third party. 7. It is submitted that any amount paid under No fault liability to the claimants be refunded with interest to the appellant insurance company. However, if any amount of No fault liability is lying in Fixed Deposit, the Tribunal may be directed to refund the same with interest to the appellate Insurance Company. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Mohsin Hakim for the defendants no.1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 has submitted that the impugned award is passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. There is no need to modify the award and judgment. 9. The Tribunal has correctly placed reliance in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Sunil Kumar & Anr. In Civil Appeal no.9694 of 2013 and held that in claim petition under Section163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is open for the Insurance Company to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. Moreover, looking to the insurance policy, more particularly the Schedule of premium, whereby the insurance company has received premium of Rs.300/- for Third Party basic and Rs.50/- towards “Compulsory PA to Owner-Driver”. So the Insurance Company has received premium towards the risk of driver and owner of that vehicle. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the driver of the motorcycle. Looking to the contents of the Insurance Policy, more particularly, Schedule of Premium, the Insurance Company has indemnified the risk of deceased, who was driving the motorcycle. The Tribunal has held that there is no breach of terms or conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the appellants. Looking to the contents of the Insurance Policy, more particularly, Schedule of Premium, the Insurance Company has indemnified the risk of deceased, who was driving the motorcycle. The Tribunal has held that there is no breach of terms or conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the appellants. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the documents on record. It would be germane to rely upon the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi V/s. United India Insurance Company, 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65585 :(2020) (2) SCC 550. The Supreme Court has held as under:- 5.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions 23 of the contract of insurance. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions 23 of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the 24 offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle. 11. The Insurance Company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest to the claimant. 12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.816 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Therefore, Insurance Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest to the claimant. 13. In view of disposal of First Appeal, Civil Application, if any, filed, stands disposed of.