JUDGEMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') in 'File No. 82/Claim', titled, 'Karamat Hussain v. Reliance General Ins. Ltd. & Anr.', whereby learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum throughout till realization in favour of the petitioner No.1. 2. The award has been impugned by the appellant-Insurance Co. on the following grounds: (a) that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award did not consider the fact that respondent No. 1 did not fall within the definition of 'owner-driver' as defined in the Policy and as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, for getting the benefit under Personal Accident Cover for owner-driver, the three mandatory requirements were required to be fulfilled. (b) that the learned Tribunal, while passing the award, completely ignored section-III of the Policy pertaining to personal accident to owner-driver, as the compensation under the Policy for Personal Accident Cover was payable only in such cases where the injury suffered by the insured was death, loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye and 100% permanent total disablement from injuries other than the above named injuries. The respondent No. 1 neither suffered any loss of limb nor 100% disablement as defined and provided in the Policy, therefore, no compensation could have been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1. 3. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent No. 1/claimant had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and as such, he was not entitled to any compensation payable under the Policy in terms of Personal Accident Cover to owner-driver and further that as per section-III, the liability of the company was limited to the conditions/contingencies provided under section-III of the Policy. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in 'Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Balwant Rai & Ors., 2017 AAC 121 (J&K)', Division Bench judgment of this court in 'The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dwarka Nath & Ors. decided on 31.01.2023' and judgment of the Apex Court in 'Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. The United India Insurance Co. & Anr. , AIR 2020 SC 527 . 4. Ltd. v. Dwarka Nath & Ors. decided on 31.01.2023' and judgment of the Apex Court in 'Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. The United India Insurance Co. & Anr. , AIR 2020 SC 527 . 4. Per contra, Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that the respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle with the authorization of the owner therefore, the respondent No. 1 stepped into the shoes of owner-driver, as such the appellant/insurance company is under obligation to pay the compensation to respondent No. 1. He further argued that the appellant has suffered disability to an extent of 35%, as such the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation in favour of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon judgment of the High Court of Madras in 'Shanmugam v. Manivasagam & Anr., decided on 11.02.2021'. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short the Act) on account of disablement caused to him as a result of the injuries suffered in a vehicular accident on 19.11.2013 near Shamshan Ghat Dalogra within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rajouri, while driving Car No. JK11A/5500 owned by respondent No. 2 while coming from Jammu towards Rajouri. 7. The learned Tribunal has held that respondent No. 1 is entitled to compensation to the extent of liability of Rs. 2 lacs only in terms of 'Personal Accident Cover' of the 'owner-driver' of the vehicle. Though the learned Tribunal has not specifically returned a finding that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any compensation under section 163-A of the Act, but nonetheless, it transpires from the record that respondent No. 1 has been held entitled to compensation under the Personal Accident clause of the Policy. 8. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms of section-III of the Policy providing Personal Accident Cover to the driver/owner, the appellant is under contractual obligation to pay compensation only to owner-driver. The respondent No. 1 is the borrower as such, he is not entitled to any compensation. 8. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms of section-III of the Policy providing Personal Accident Cover to the driver/owner, the appellant is under contractual obligation to pay compensation only to owner-driver. The respondent No. 1 is the borrower as such, he is not entitled to any compensation. Though the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the year, 2017 has held that only the registered owner of the vehicle and not the user is entitled to compensation under Personal Accident Cover for owner-driver of the Insurance Policy, but the Supreme Court has examined the issue as to whether the borrower of the vehicle can be provided protection under the Personal Accident Cover of the Policy or not in Ramkhiladi's case (supra). The Supreme Court in the said case, while rejecting the claim of the claimant for grant of compensation under section 163-A of the Act held that, the deceased who was a borrower of the vehicle from its owner would step into the shoes of the owner and shall be entitled to the compensation as per 'the contract of insurance'. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 being a borrower of the vehicle is not entitled to compensation under Personal Accident Cover of the Policy providing compensation to owner-driver only is rejected. 9. The other contention raised by the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has passed the award contrary to section-III of the Policy. 9. The other contention raised by the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has passed the award contrary to section-III of the Policy. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is appropriate to take note of the section-III of the Insurance Policy, which reads as under: "Section III-Personal Accident cover for owner-driver: The Company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the Owner-Driver of the vehicle, in direct connection with the vehicle Insured or whilst driving or mounting into/dismounting from the vehicle Insured or whilst travelling in it vehicle as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in: Nature of Injury Scale of Compensation (i) Death 100% (ii) Loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye 100% (iii) Loss of one limb or sight of one eye 50% (iv) Permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above 100% Provided always that: (A) compensation shall be payable under only one of the items (i) to (iv) above in respect of the owner-driver arising out of any one occurrence and the total liability of the insurer shall not in the aggregate exceed the sum of Rs. 15 lakh during any one period of insurance. (B) No compensation shall be payable in respect of death or bodily injury directly or indirectly wholly or in part arising or resulting from or traceable to (i) intentional self injury suicide or attempted suicide physical defect or infirmity or (ii) an accident happening whilst such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. (C) Such compensation shall be payable directly to the Insured or to his/her legal representatives whose receipt shall be the full discharge in respect of the injury to the Insured. 2) This cover is subject to- (a) The Owner-Driver is the registered owner of the vehicle Insured herein; (b) The Owner-Driver is the Insured named in this Policy. (c) The Owner-Driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (as amended), at the time of the accident." 10. 2) This cover is subject to- (a) The Owner-Driver is the registered owner of the vehicle Insured herein; (b) The Owner-Driver is the Insured named in this Policy. (c) The Owner-Driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (as amended), at the time of the accident." 10. A perusal of the aforesaid section-III reveals that in order to get benefit of the Personal Accident Cover, the owner-driver should be the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein, the owner-driver is the insured named in this Policy and the owner-driver holds an effective driving licence in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules at the time of accident. The respondent No. 1 has not placed on record his license so as to fulfil the said condition. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal, had the respondent No. 1 succeeded in establishing that his claim was covered under the contingencies provided for grant of compensation to the owner-driver. A perusal of the said section reveals that the liability of the insurance company is limited only to the contingencies provided in the said section meaning thereby that the company is liable to pay compensation to the owner/driver on account of death, loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye, loss of one limb or sight of one eye and 100% permanent total disablement from injuries other than mentioned above. A perusal of the award reveals that the respondent No. 1 has suffered permanent disability of 35% due to post trauma headache with giddiness with right side shaft as well as chest pain with backache. The said injuries are not covered under Personal Accident Cover for the owner-driver under the conditions of the Insurance Policy. Since the claim of respondent No. 1 is on account of the contract of insurance only, as such, the rights and liabilities of insurer and insured are dependent upon the terms and conditions of the Policy. The said injuries are not covered under Personal Accident Cover for the owner-driver under the conditions of the Insurance Policy. Since the claim of respondent No. 1 is on account of the contract of insurance only, as such, the rights and liabilities of insurer and insured are dependent upon the terms and conditions of the Policy. Once the injuries suffered by respondent No. 1 are not covered under the contract of Personal Accident Cover for owner-driver, he is not entitled to any compensation notwithstanding the fact that he stepped into the shoes of the owner in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramkhiladi's case (supra). 11. This view of the Court is supported by the Division Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dwarka Nath & Ors., decided on 31.01.2023, wherein it was held by the Division Bench as under: "The opinion rendered by Dr. V. K. Sharma, Registrar Ortho, IIIrd, Medical College Jammu clearly depicts, that respondent No. 1/claimant has suffered permanently physically disablement upto 22%. As per the table appended aforesaid in regard to Personal Accident Cover for owner-driver, in terms of the column of scale of compensation, R-1/claimant has not suffered 100% or 50% of disablement, but only 22%, therefore, in view of the ratios of the judgments (Supra) R-1/claimant is not entitled any compensation........" 12. It needs to be noted that though the decision of the Division Bench is in respect of the consumer dispute between the claimant and the insurance company but the ratio of the judgment squarely applies in this case as well, as this case also is in fact dispute between Insurance Company and the claimant, who stepped into the shoes of owner-driver. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras is not applicable in the present case, as the judgment is silent with respect to the stipulations contained in the Policy in the said case. 13. In view of the above, award dated 25.11.2020 in file No. 82/Claim titled, 'Karamat Hussain v. Reliance General Ins. Ltd. & Anr.' passed by the Presiding Officer MACT, Rajouri is set aside. The claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 is dismissed. 14. Appeal allowed. 15. Original Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.