JUDGMENT : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 297/2013 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties shall be referred to as per their description before the Tribunal. 3. As per claim petition, on 15.03.2013, at about 3:10 pm, deceased-Rajjan Tiwari, aged about 30 years, earning Rs. 3,200/- per month as electrician, by driving maruti car bearing Registration UP-78U-9579 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) was going from Raipur to Dondi-Lohara. However, when he reached near Balod Road, village Manhora, he lost control over his vehicle and dashed the offending vehicle against a tree, as a result of which deceased-Rajjan Tiwari sustained grievous injuries on his body and died during treatment. At the time of accident, the said offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant no. 1/respondent no. 1, father of deceased-Rajjan Tiwari and insured with non-applicant no. 2/respondent no. 2. 4. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties dismissed the claim petition of the claimants. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act where negligence is not required to be proved. He submits that the Tribunal has wrongly observed that the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner whereas the deceased was the third party and as such was entitled for compensation as per structured formula given in the 2nd Schedule of under Section 163A of the Act. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company submits that as per Insurance Policy Ex.D-1 available on record filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, it is evident that no premium of Rs. 50 or any amount was received by the Insurance Company towards compulsory PA coverage of owner-driver for its liability. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company submits that as per Insurance Policy Ex.D-1 available on record filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, it is evident that no premium of Rs. 50 or any amount was received by the Insurance Company towards compulsory PA coverage of owner-driver for its liability. He also submits that the driver of the offending vehicle is the father of the deceased so he is not covered under the third party and no any extra premium was paid by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to the Insurance Company. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle in question from its registered owner i.e. respondent No. 1 herein, who is the father of the deceased and was driving the same on 15.03.2013 when the unfortunate accident took place, in which, he died. From perusal of Insurance Policy i.e. Ex.D-1 available on record, which has not been disputed by the parties, it is evident that no premium was received by the Insurance Company towards PA coverage of owner-driver and no extra premium was paid by the owner to the Insurance Company. 9. The Tribunal further held that on the date of the accident the deceased was driving the offending vehicle and since the deceased was the son of the registered owner of the vehicle, his case would not fall under the category of Third Party, inasmuch, as the claimants have failed to adduce any evidence to show that the deceased was Paid Driver of the registered owner of the vehicle or the deceased was working under his control and, therefore, the status of the deceased could be treated as registered owner of the vehicle and the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 has held that claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not maintainable by borrower/permissive user of vehicle against owner and/or insurer of said vehicle. Paragraphs 9.4 to 9.6 are relevant for the purpose, which read as under: “...........9.4. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Ningamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 . 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. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma (supra), 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. 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, M.A. No. 49 of 2009 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. As held by this Court in Dhanraj vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 553 , 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 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.......” 11. When the present case is considered in the light of judgment as referred herein above, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the deceased being the son of the registered owner stepped into shoes of the owner and the registered owner of the vehicle cannot file a claim petition against himself to seek compensation because the registered owner of the vehicle himself is liable to pay compensation. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same cannot be interfered with. 12. In the result, the Appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.