JUDGMENT : PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 38/2013. 3. On 17.10.2012, the deceased was coming from Balapara to Chalantapara by riding a motorcycle bearing registration no. AS-01-AK-1861. The motorcycle belonged to Asimuddin Ahmed. While he reached Pallirrtal, two persons suddenly ran across the road. The deceased lost control of the motorcycle and fell down on the road. He sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. 4. A claim application was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 5. The insurance company contested the case by filing a written statement. The insurance company claimed that the claimant is not entitled to compensation on the ground that the insurance policy covered only the third party risk. 6. Asimuddin Ahmed also contested the case by filing a written statement. He claimed that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the motor vehicle accident took place on 17.10.2012 as alleged and if so, whether the vehicle no. AS-01-AK-1861 was involved in the said accident? (ii) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle? (iii) Whether the death of Nazrul Ahmed was caused by the accident in question due to use of the vehicle no. AS-01-AK-1861? (iv) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation for the death of Nazrul Ahmed, if so, to what extent and by whom it should be paid? 8. The claimant examined three witnesses. The insurance company as well as the owner of the motorcycle did not examine any witnesses. 9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,54,500/-. 10. The only substantial ground on which the appeal has been filed is that the insurance policy covered third party risk only and the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the original owner which means that the deceased was not a third party. 11. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,54,500/-. 10. The only substantial ground on which the appeal has been filed is that the insurance policy covered third party risk only and the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the original owner which means that the deceased was not a third party. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides. 12. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the policy covered third party risk. Now, the question is whether the deceased was a third party. This question has arisen because of the fact that by borrowing the motorcycle from another person the deceased had stepped into his shoes. 13. The Tribunal did not undertake any inquire into these facts. Therefore, the impugned judgment is bad in law. Therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal again for deciding afresh. The Tribunal may take guidance from Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710 . 14. With the aforesaid directions the appeal is allowed. 15. Send back the LCR.