JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.64 of 2003 by which the learned Tribunal directed the appellant-insurance company to pay half of the amount of Rs.7,20,000/- after deducting the amount as already paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act to the claimant, through an account payee cheque with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition within one month from the date of the said judgment and award dated 30.08.2008 to the respondent-claimants. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased –Rameshwar Prasad Singh @ Ramesh Prasad Singh on 08.02.2001 while riding a borrowed motorcycle of the owner, the motorcycle was hit by a scooter which scooter was being rashly and negligently driven and by such motorcycle accident, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The appellant-insurance company is the insurer of the Hero-Honda Motorcycle. The insurance policy concerned is a ‘Motorcycle Policy B Act With Theft’. It is pertinent to mention here that no premium was paid regarding Personal Accident Coverage (P.A.C). The insurance company contested the claim of the claimants for payment of compensation. 4. The learned tribunal framed the following four issues which are as under:- (i) Is the claim petition maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending scooter or by the own motorcycle of the deceased bearing no. BR 1 L-4838? (iii) Whether the applicant/claimant is entitled to get compensation and from whom? (iv) To what relief or reliefs, the applicant is entitled to? And held that the claim petition is maintainable as the same has been filed for compensation in respect of an accident following death arising out of the use of motorcycle. In respect of issue no.2, it was concluded by the learned tribunal that this was a case of contributory negligence and at the time of accident, both the driver of the scooter and the motorcycle were driving their respective vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to mistake of both the drivers, the accident took place. In respect of issue nos. In respect of issue nos. 3 & 4, the learned tribunal considering the fact that the vehicle borrowed by the petitioner was covered by the appellant-insurance company held that the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. & Anr. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 para -9.4 to 9.9 of which reads as under:- “Xxxxxxxxxxx 9.4. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Ningamma. In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that 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. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, as such, in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163-A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma, and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable. 9.5. It is true that, in a claim under Section 163-A 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 163-A 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 163-A 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 163-A 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 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 of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in Dhanraj, 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 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 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. 9.6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163-A 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 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle. 9.8. 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 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs 1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs 5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs 5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court in 10-5-2018 i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 9.9. Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the claimants that in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act mere use of the vehicle is enough and despite the compensation claimed by the heirs of the owner of the motorcycle which was involved in the accident resulting in his death, the claim under Section 163-A of the Act would be maintainable is concerned, in view of the decision of this Court in Rajni Devi, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In Rajni Devi, it has been specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. After considering the decisions of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha; Dhanraj; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev, 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 as also a recipient and, 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. 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 this Court in Ashalata Bhowmik, 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 a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs 1 lakh as observed hereinabove. (Emphasis supplied) Submits that the deceased cannot be treated as a third party in respect of the vehicle –motorcycle borrowed by him from the owner of the vehicle and under the policy of insurance, as the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation only to the third party, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation amount. 6. Mr. Alok Lal next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 paragraph nos. 12 & 19 of which reads as under:- “12. It is not a case where even Section 163-A of the Act was resorted to. The respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the Act. Only an Act policy was taken in respect of the motor vehicle. Submission of the learned counsel that being a two-wheeler, the vehicle was more prone to accident and, therefore, whosoever becomes victim of an accident arising out of the use thereof would come within the purview of the term “a person” as provided for in Section 147 of the Act, in our opinion, is not correct. 19. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements, we have no hesitation to hold that the Insurance Company was not liable. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.” And submits that since the deceased is not a third party, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and the compensation, if any, be directed to be paid by the owner of the vehicle as the claim of compensation is claimed in respect of the accident involved in the death of the deceased has arisen out of the use of the motorcycle of the owner. 7. Mr. Alok Lal next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik & Ors., reported in (2018) 9 SCC 801 , paragraph nos. 6 & 7 of which reads as under:- “6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle and has caused the accident. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. He cannot be treated as a third party. Therefore, the High Court has rightly held that the claim petition filed by the respondents was not maintainable. In view of this finding, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant to pay the compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has sought to justify the impugned order. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. It is an admitted position that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.” (Emphasis supplied) And submits that as the tribunal has held that the death of the deceased was caused due to his own negligence, the claim for compensation is not maintainable and in this respect, Mr. Alok Lal also relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 paragraph no.7 of which reads as under:- “7. Alok Lal also relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 paragraph no.7 of which reads as under:- “7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. The Tribunal, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in taking the view that while determining the amount of compensation, the only factor which would be relevant would be merely the use of the motor vehicle.” And submits that it is now well settled principle of law that where a compensation is claimed for the death of the owner of the vehicle or any person stepping into his shoes by borrowing his vehicle the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim against insurance company would depend upon the terms of the policy, hence the tribunal ought not have saddled the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurance company in view of the fact that the policy in question is an ‘Act Only’ policy and there was no liability of the insurance company except against the claim of third party. 8. Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha that the deceased is a third party as has been referred under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this appeal for consideration is: (i) Whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount as directed by the tribunal? 10. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this appeal for consideration is: (i) Whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount as directed by the tribunal? 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the tribunal has held the deceased to be equally negligent in causing accident. The said finding of the tribunal has remained unchallenged. In view of the principle of law settled in the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. & Anr. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors., (supra) or National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the deceased was not a third party in respect of the Hero Honda motorcycle which he was riding at the time of the alleged accident as the tribunal has held that the deceased is said to be negligent resulting in the said accident, the deceased is a tort feasor. So a tort feasor cannot be held to take benefit of his own wrong, thus the insurer insurance company also could not be held liable for the compensation. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.08.2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.64 of 2003 is set aside and the insurance company is absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount. 12. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to pay the statutory amount, if any deposited by the appellant in connection with this appeal to the concerned officer of the appellant-insurance company upon proper identification. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed on contest but without any cost. 14. Parties to bear their own costs. 15. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned tribunal forthwith along with the Lower Court Records.