JUDGMENT : Heard Ms S Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr G Jalan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2006, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup and thereby awarding an amount of Rs. 2,74,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in MAC Case No. 141/2006. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 30.11.2005, while the claimant’s son was riding a vehicle, bearing No AS-01E-5334 (Esteem) and on reaching near Darakohara under Kamalpur Police Station, the said vehicle met with an accident due to technical snag and as a result of which, dashed into a tree for which the son of the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person and ultimately succumbed to his injuries at GMCH, Guwahati. After the accident one GD Entry vide. Kamalpur PS GDE No. 724, dated 30.11.2005, was registered on the same day. At the relevant time of accident, the alleged vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the claim petition is not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act, as on the fateful day of the accident the deceased was riding the offending vehicle and the accident occurred due to his negligence and as such, the impugned Judgment and Award is liable to be set aside. 5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the provisions of the MV Act, in MACT cases, there are three necessary parties, i.e,. the claimant, insured and the insurer. In the instant case, the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner. Thus, deceased cannot be termed as a third party for the purpose of awarding the compensation under the Act. 6. Learned counsel further contended that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal are on incorrect appreciation of law enunciated by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Ningamma & Another –Vs-United India Insurance Company Limited; reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 . Thus, the learned counsel argued that as the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Act, it is primarily the liability of the owner to indemnify the claim. 7. Thus, the learned counsel argued that as the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Act, it is primarily the liability of the owner to indemnify the claim. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants has submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the vehicle, which was being driven by the deceased and Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163(A) of the Act cannot apply, wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. It is also submitted that 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 will be third party only. 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 lac. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a case law, Civil Appeal No. 9393/2019 (Ramkhilary & Another –Vs-United & Another) 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of MAC Case No. 141/2006 along with the documents available thereon. 9. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time of accident, Pradip Deka was the driver of the alleged vehicle, i.e., No AS-01E-5334 (Esteem) and he was not a paid driver. He borrowed the car from the registered owner. The claim petition was preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased against the owner and insurer of the offending car. As the deceased borrowed the car of the owner, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and, therefore cannot be the recipient of the compensation. The Insurance Policy is a contract of Insurance which only provides for indemnity to the Insurer Company as the liability of the owner towards third party and not the user/rider who steps into the shoes of the insured himself. From a perusal of the insurance policy, it is clear that the premium was paid towards personal accident. The Insurance Policy is a contract of Insurance which only provides for indemnity to the Insurer Company as the liability of the owner towards third party and not the user/rider who steps into the shoes of the insured himself. From a perusal of the insurance policy, it is clear that the premium was paid towards personal accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be burdened with the liability of the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased who borrowed the vehicle from the registered owner, except Rs. 1 lac, as personal accident claim. 10. It is amply proved on record that the deceased was at fault and Section 163-A is not meant to extend the benefit to the tort feaser. The party who suffered loss in the MACT claims must be the third party, whereas, in the present case, the legal representatives filed the claim petition against the registered owner and the insurer of the esteem car. 11. In the case of Ningamma –Vs-United India Insurance Company Limited, (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs – 13, 18, 19 and 20, as under:- “13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions the question that falls for our consideration is whether the legal representatives of a person, who was driving a motor vehicle after borrowing it from the real owner, meets with an accident, without involving any other vehicle would be entitled to compensation under Section 163-A Motor Vehicles Act or any other provision(s) of law and also whether the insurer who issued the insurance policy would be bound to indemnify the deceased or his legal representatives!” Before dwelling further, it would be relevant to refer Sections 163 A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, applicable in the present case. Section 163 A-Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the vehicle insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement, due to accident arising out of the motor vehicle accident, compensation as indicated in the second schedule, to the legal heirs of the victim , as the case may be. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (2) In any claim for compensation in Sub-Section (1), the claim shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement, in respect of which, the claim was made, due to any wrongful act or neglect or death of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of allowing by notification in the official Gazette from time to time, mentioned in the second schedule. Section 166.Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. XXX XXX XXX XXX 18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. –Vs-Rajani Devi & Others, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 , wherein one of us, namely, Hon’ble Mr Justice S B Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, liability of the insurance company will be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed from the death of the owner or any passenger of vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the Insurance Company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. It was held in the said decision that Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under Section 163 A of the MV Act is on the owner of the vehicle so a person cannot be both, a claimant as well as a recipient with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In our considered opinion the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike, but he borrowed it from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike, although he was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. 19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim dies or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle, in that event, the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the Insurance Company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163 A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case, the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MV Act. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 20. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MV Act. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 20. When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the claimants are not entitled to compensate under Section 163-A and to that extent the High Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the question remains as to whether an application for demand of compensation could have been made by the Legal Representatives of the deceased as provided in Section 166 of the MV Act. The said provision specifically provides an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub Section (1) of Section 165 may be made by the person who has sustained the injury or by the owner of the property or where death has resulted in the form the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, or by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased as the case may be. When an application of the aforesaid nature claiming compensation under the provisions of Section 166 is received, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then, proceed to make an award, which, however, would be subject to the provisions of Section 162, by determining the amount of compensation, which is found to be just. Person or persons who made claim for compensation would thereafter be paid such amount. When such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. Legal representatives would also be necessary to prove that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the Insurance Company liable to make the payment to the heirs. In this context, reference could be made to relevant paragraphs of Section 147 of the MV Act, which reads as follows:- Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. In this context, reference could be made to relevant paragraphs of Section 147 of the MV Act, which reads as follows:- Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. — (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily 27[injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised 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 a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required— (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee — (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:— (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” 12. Reverting back to the present case, the respondents/ claimants are not covered under the Act as they are not the claimants, insured or insurer as the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle in question. Thus, they cannot be stated to be third party for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Act. 13. In the case of Ramkhilary and Anr (supra) Hon’ble SC has observed as follows:- “It is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability under Section 163 A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both a claimant and a recipient. Therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163 A of the Act. It is further observed that for the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. In the recent decision of the “Ashalata Bhowmick (supra), it is specifically held by this Court that the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of Insurance. Therefore, as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to the third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs. Therefore, as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to the third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs. 1 lac as observed hereinabove.” 14. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the present appeal is partly allowed. The original claimants/respondents shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1 lac with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount of compensation, in the savings account of the claimant, Smt. Putuli Deka (mother of the deceased) in any nationalized Bank through NEFT. She is directed to furnish her Bank details of any nationalized Bank to the Insurance Company for necessary payment. Any amount if paid earlier by the Insurance Company be adjusted accordingly. On payment of any excess amount, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same. 15. The Statutory amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant/National Insurance Company Limited. 16. LCR be returned back.