JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, assailing the judgment and award dated 23.07.2010, in MACP No.1253 of 2005, passed by the Claim Tribunal at Vadodara. 2. According to case of the respondents-claimants that on 20.06.2005, the deceased Nilesh Soni, met with an accident when the motorbike upon which he was riding dashed against the opposite truck involved in the alleged accident, as a result of which, the deceased was succumbed to his injuries. The respondents-claimants being legal heirs and representatives had filed a claim petition invoking Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act joining the driver, owner and insurance companies of both the vehicles. Learned Claim Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 23.07.2010, awarded a sum of compensation of Rs.2,38,300/- on the basis of structured formula with interest @ 7.5%, holding the appellant-insurance company as well as the insurance company of the truck liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The claimant Pinal Soni being an owner of the bike, was also joined as a party opponent in the claim petition. The bike was insured with present appellant insurance company. 3. On aforesaid factual premise, the appellant-insurance company being aggrieved with the judgment and award has preferred the present appeal on the legal ground that, the insured i.e. Pinal Soni being an owner of the bike, could not claim compensation from his own insurance company as he cannot be termed as third party. 4. This Court has heard learned counsel Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for and on behalf of the insurance company and Mr. Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of original claimants-respondents herein. Mr. Vasant Shah, learned counsel who is representing the Oriental Insurance Company with whom the offending truck was insured, has chosen to remain absent, though called out repeatedly. It needs to be noted that, on 07.12.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while adjourning the matter, observed that, since long Mr. Vasant Shah is not appearing in the proceedings and on the next date, the matter would proceeds on its merits in his absence. Even on earlier occasion also he remained absent and his absence was observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Vasant Shah is not appearing in the proceedings and on the next date, the matter would proceeds on its merits in his absence. Even on earlier occasion also he remained absent and his absence was observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The matter is of year 2010 and therefore, this Court cannot wait further and thus, in absence of learned counsel Mr. Vasant Shah, the matter was heard finally. 5. Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant-insurance company has submitted that, the judgment and award so far as fixing the liability on the part of the appellant-insurance company is concerned, is contrary to the law. It is in this context, she submitted that, deceased Nilesh Soni being a rider of the motorbike, met with an accident as the said bike collided with the opposite truck. The bike was owned by the son of the deceased namely Pinal Soni. The son as well as other legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The son Pinal Soni being an owner of the bike was also joined as opponent along with the present appellant-insurance company with whom the bike was insured. In such circumstances, the learned tribunal failed to appreciate the legal provision in relation to the liability of insurance company contemplated under Chapter-11 of the Motor Vehicle Act which pertains to the insurance of motor vehicle against third party. Referring to Section 147 of the Act, learned counsel Ms. Pathak submitted that, the insurance policy covers the liability in respect of bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party and therefore, when Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or of a bodily injury to the owner of a vehicle, the tribunal could not have fixed the liability on the part of the appellant-insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. 6. Ms. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, before the tribunal, the case of Ningamma And Anr. Vs. 6. Ms. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, before the tribunal, the case of Ningamma And Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited ( AIR 2009 SC 3056 ) was referred and relied to submit that, the legal representative of a person was driving the vehicle after borrowing it from the owner met with an accident would not entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act as the legal representatives would step into shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle. 7. In the aforesaid contention, learned counsel Ms. Pathak submitted that, the findings of the tribunal fixing the liability of the appellant-insurance company are contrary to law and principles laid down by the Apex Court in its various judgments and bypassing the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the tribunal misinterpreted the provision of law and ratio laid down by the Apex Court on the issue and thus, the findings on the issue of liability are perverse and same deserves to be set aside. 8. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants submitted that, the defenses available under Chapter-11 of the Motor Vehicle Act are not available to the insurance company in a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore, no error much less an error of law could be said to have been committed by the tribunal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of material placed on record, the issue falls for my consideration is whether the tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent-legal representatives of the deceased? 10. It is not in dispute that, the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The vehicle motorbike was owned by Pinakin Soni who is the father of deceased. Mr. Pinakin Soni was claimant before the tribunal and also being an owner of the bike, was joined as a party opponent. Before the tribunal, the plea of liability i.e. defense available under Chapter-11 of the Motor Vehicle Act was raised and to substantiate the issue of liability, heavy reliance was placed on the case of Ningamma (supra). 11. Mr. Pinakin Soni was claimant before the tribunal and also being an owner of the bike, was joined as a party opponent. Before the tribunal, the plea of liability i.e. defense available under Chapter-11 of the Motor Vehicle Act was raised and to substantiate the issue of liability, heavy reliance was placed on the case of Ningamma (supra). 11. In the aforesaid admitted background facts and considering the provision of Chapter-11 of the Motor Vehicle Act, this Court is of considered view that, the findings recorded by the tribunal on the issue of liability of appellant-insurance company are contrary to the statutory provision as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in its various judgments. The Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar & Another has held that, in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defense of negligence on the part of the victim. 12. Thus, therefore, except the defense of negligence, the defenses available to insurance companies under Section 147 of the Act can be permitted to plead and/or raise even in the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Section 147 of the Act gives power to the insurance company to avoid its liability if it can prove that, the vehicle was plied in contravention of the policy condition. A bare reading of Section 147 says that, the liability of the insurance company is only for the purpose of identifying the insured towards third party person and the provision does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. In the facts of present case, due to collision of truck bearing registration no.GJ-1-AT-5344 and motorbike bearing registration no. GJ-6-BG-5377, the deceased Nilesh Soni being a rider of the bike, succumbed to his injuries. Admittedly, the bike belonged to Pinal Nilesh Soni who happened to be son of the deceased. It is not the case of respondent-claimants that, the father was not employee of the owner of the vehicle. Thus, therefore, the ratio of decision (Ningamma) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the bike belonged to Pinal Nilesh Soni who happened to be son of the deceased. It is not the case of respondent-claimants that, the father was not employee of the owner of the vehicle. Thus, therefore, the ratio of decision (Ningamma) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. The legal representatives would step into shoes of the owner of the vehicle as the vehicle was borrowed by the deceased from the owner of the vehicle and therefore, when driver i.e. deceased is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case, the insured i.e. owner could not himself be recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. The Apex Court in the case of Ningamma (supra) after referring the earlier judgments (i) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Prabha Devi & Ors. ( 2013 ACJ 1382 ), (ii) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. ( 2009 ACJ 998 ), (iii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi & Ors. ( 2008 ACJ 1441 ) and (iv) Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. ( 2005 ACJ 1 ), wherein it was held that, Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved as the liability under Section 163-A is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient with respect to the claim. 13. In light of the aforesaid legal principles propounded by the Apex Court and applying the same to the facts of the present case, the tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that, the defenses are not available to the insurer as contemplated under Chapter-11 of the Motor Vehicle Act and the findings thereof are contrary to the statutory provisions as well as the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions. 14. For the reasons recorded, the appeal is allowed. The appellant-insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants. The tribunal shall refund the amount, if any, with accrued interest. The claimants are entitled to recover the awarded amount jointly and severally from respondents no.6 and 7 i.e. original opponents no.2 and 3. Decree be drawn accordingly. The appellant-insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants. The tribunal shall refund the amount, if any, with accrued interest. The claimants are entitled to recover the awarded amount jointly and severally from respondents no.6 and 7 i.e. original opponents no.2 and 3. Decree be drawn accordingly. The R & P be remitted to the concerned tribunal henceforth.