JUDGMENT : PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.124 of 2016 dated 23.03.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. The Insurance Company is before this Court, challenging the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.124 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. 2. The petition has been filed by the respondents herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Manikandan under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident in which Manikandan has lost his life has occurred as follows: The deceased Manikandan was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 54 Z 4208 in Imlikhedha Road, Madhya Pradesh and as he was proceeding near the Khartalai Bridge, Ulijhawan, Imlikheda, the deceased while taking a turn hit against the railing of a bridge and fell into the canal along with the motorcycle. In the fall, he had injured his head and became unconscious. He was admitted to a private hospital at Bhopal, where he died. 3. The claimants are the wife, minor son, father and brother of the deceased, Manikandan. The respondents 1 to 5 have claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the accident that had taken place in Madhya Pradesh and where First Information Report had been lodged at Madhya Pradesh, the claimants had moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Salem. It was also stated that the deceased was working as a driller under one Sellamuthu. 4. The Insurance Company has filed a counter denying the liability on the ground that the accident had happened only on account of the negligence of the deceased himself and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the loss. 5. The Tribunal below, however, proceeded to pass an award for a sum of Rs.6,83,673/- by order dated 23.03.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2016. 6. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 7. The appeal has been filed on the ground that the claimants were not entitled to compensation since the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. 6. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 7. The appeal has been filed on the ground that the claimants were not entitled to compensation since the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. They would contend that the Tribunal has over looked the fact that since the deceased was the tort-feasor and no extra premium had been collected from the owner of the vehicle he is not covered under the policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. 8. Mrs.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company would placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. The United India Insurance Company and another reported in 2020 (2) SCC 550 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to make a claim under Section 163-A against the owner/insurer of the vehicle, the deceased has to be a third party and unless this fact is established, the claimants are not entitled to be compensated, since the provision is covered under no fault liability. 9. Per contra, Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants would submit that the deceased was an employee of the sixth respondent herein and therefore, the third party to the vehicle and he has been rightly compensated by the Insurance Company. He was also invoked the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act relating to the requirement of policy and limitation of the liability to state that the Insurance Company has to definitely cover the death or bodily injury to any person or damage to the property of a third party. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 12 SCC 395 in Shivaji and Another Vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, in support of his argument that in the case of Section 163-A petition, the Insurance Company cannot raise the issue of negligence. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2003 ACJ 1021 in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kaliya Pillai and others and 2015 (2) TN MAC 362 (DB) in M.Anbalagan Vs. K.M.Asalm Basha. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2003 ACJ 1021 in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kaliya Pillai and others and 2015 (2) TN MAC 362 (DB) in M.Anbalagan Vs. K.M.Asalm Basha. In the first of the judgments, the Division Bench had held that the tort-feasor cannot claim compensation from the owner of the vehicle and cannot also make a claim from the Insurance Company. However, the Bench had observed that the liability of the Insurance Company is not determined only with reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also with reference to the contract of insurance which would extent to the liability under the Workmen Compensation Act. 10. The Division Bench has proceeded to grant compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act as the person who had succumbed to the injury was a driver of the vehicle and employed under one Sellamuthu and therefore, he was liable to be compensated under the Workmen Compensation Act. 11. Similarly, in the second judgment, the learned Judge had observed that the victim could approach the Forum under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Forum under the Employees' Compensation Act. However, in order to approach the Court under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he must not himself be a tort-feasor. If a claim is made under Employees Compensation Act, the Bench ultimately held that the claimant was the driver of the lorry and therefore, was working under the first respondent and therefore he was entitled to be compensated under the Employees' Compensation Act. 12. In the case on hand, though the claimants/respondents 1 to 5 had contended that the deceased was working under the first respondent/Sellamuthu, there is no proof of the same. Further, a mere reading of the First Information Report, in the vernacular (Hindi) would clearly show that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. However, the English translation has not captured the exact meaning of the words. Further, a mere reading of the First Information Report, in the vernacular (Hindi) would clearly show that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. However, the English translation has not captured the exact meaning of the words. In the F.I.R., in Hindi language it is stated that the eye witness had reported that the motorcycle, in which, the motorcyclist was travelling was driven rashly and negligently with great speed and as a result of which, he was not able to stop the motorcycle while taking the curve and hit on the bridge and as a result of which he had fallen over the railings. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the deceased himself was a tort-feasor and by reason of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another Vs. The United India Insurance Company and another reported in 2020 (2) SCC 550 , the deceased is not entitled to be compensated by the Insurance Company. The judgment has been reiterated by this Court in C.M.A.No.2638 of 2019, where in, this Court has observed as follows: ''38. In Ramkhiladi and another v. The United India Insurance Company and another [ 2020 (2) SCC 550 ], the Tribunal had relied upon the principle that in a claim under Section 163A the claimant was not required to plead or establish negligence. The High Court had overturned this finding and held that the application under Section 163A of the Act against the Insurance Company of the vehicle driven by the deceased himself is liable to be dismissed. This was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Judge explained the principle and the purport of a claim under section 163A in Para 5.5 which is extracted herein below: "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. 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." 39. The tenor and purport of the above Judgment is the principle of 'No Fault Liability” obviously implies that the injury or death or the claimant is the result of the involvement of a third party with the claimant being an innocent by stander and the accident has occurred out of no fault of his.'' 13. As regards the arguments that the claimants may be treated as one under the Employees' Compensation Act, the claimants/respondents have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was under the employment of the Sellamuthu/6th respondent herein, the same has to be necessarily negatived. That apart the case of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants is that he was working as a driller and therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench relied upon would not come to there as since in both cases, the deceased were drivers, who were driving the vehicle and the accident had occurred in the course of their employment. 14. For the above reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.124 of 2016 dated 23.03.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.