JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 05.02.2019 passed in MVC No.8/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It was the case of the appellants/petitioners that on 13.04.2016 at 8.30 p.m., the deceased Shambulinga was riding the motorcycle bearing KA-37/Y-0712 and going on Sindhanur-Gangavathi main road; At Pragatinagar, pedestrian by name Hulugappa came across the road. Deceased tried to avoid the accident and in that process, he lost control of the motorcycle and fell down. He sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to SDM Hospital, Dharwad; While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 01.05.2016. 4. It was further contended that the deceased was aged about 25 years, working as driver and earning Rs.3,333/-p.m. Claimants were depending upon the earnings of the deceased, who are his wife, minor son, brother and sister respectively of the deceased Shambhulingappa. With these reasons, petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.22,88,200/-. This petition was filed under Section 163A of M.V.Act. 5. Respondent No.2 has contended before the Tribunal that rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Shambhulingappa was not holding valid driving licence. The owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of the policy. The accident was caused due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, petition is not maintainable and legal heirs of the deceased cannot claim compensation under Section 163A of M.V.Act. The amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal has framed relevant issues. Petitioners have examined P.Ws.1 and and got marked Exs.P1 to P95. 7. Respondent No.2 examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment. The same is challenged by the claimants. 8. We have heard the arguments. 9. The following points emerge for our determination: i) Whether petition is maintainable and claimants are entitled for compensation? > ii) What order? 10. This petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. The main contention of respondent No.2 was that deceased had taken the vehicle from the owner and was riding the same in a rash and negligent manner; due to his negligence, the accident had taken place and he died in the accident. > ii) What order? 10. This petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. The main contention of respondent No.2 was that deceased had taken the vehicle from the owner and was riding the same in a rash and negligent manner; due to his negligence, the accident had taken place and he died in the accident. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3538/2009 in the case of Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. held that borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, borrower of the vehicle or his legal heirs are not entitled for compensation. The Tribunal has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Josef reported in 2012(2) KLT 132 and held that petition was not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Another vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., and Another reported in 2020 ACJ 627 and submitted that claim petition is not maintainable. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2527/2020 dated 08.06.2020 in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Another and contended that in view of law laid down in the above said judgment, claimants are entitled for compensation. 13. We have considered contentions of both side. 14. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The facts in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari (supra) are different from the facts of the present case. In the above referred case, the deceased was a pillion rider and the rider of the motorcycle was different person. Therefore, it was held that pillion rider was third party and hence, claimants were entitled for compensation. But in the present case, the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle and according to petition averments, he was riding the motorcycle in a high speed and he could not control the vehicle thereby he dashed against pedestrian and caused the accident. Therefore, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and he hence, he cannot maintain claim petition against the insurance company. 15. Therefore, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and he hence, he cannot maintain claim petition against the insurance company. 15. In the case of Ramkhiladi (supra), is held as under: “In the 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 offending vehicle, i.e., RJ 292M 9223, being third party to the said vehicle.” 16. In this case also, the deceased steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, the claimants cannot claim compensation against the insurance company of the said motorcycle. However, in the above said case, as per the contract of insurance, owner-cum-driver was entitled compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, Hon’ble Supreme Court was awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-to the claimants. 17. In this case, policy of insurance was produced as Ex.R1. As per it, premium of Rs.50/-was collected to cover the risk of personal accident of owner, driver to the maximum limit of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the said contract of insurance, claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. To that extent, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation and the claimants are not entitled for compensation as claimed in the petition. 18. Claimants are the wife, minor son, brother and sister of the deceased. Brother and sister are not directly depending on the deceased and they are majors. Therefore, the said meager amount of compensation has to be equally apportioned to petitioner Nos.1 and with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount. Accordingly, we answer the above points and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part with costs. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount. Accordingly, we answer the above points and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part with costs. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount. Respondent No.2 is directed pay the compensation amount. The amount of compensation shall be equally apportioned to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner No.2 is minor. The said amount shall be kept in interest bearing deposit till he attains majority.