JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 16.12.2020, in M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with the claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, on account of the death of Varampati Suresh Kumar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 12.10.2012, allowed the claim in part awarding a sum of Rs.7,18,500/- with joint and several liability against the first and second respondents and with a direction to the second respondent to deposit the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of Award and apportioned a sum of Rs.5,18,500/- in favour of the first claimant (mother) and Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the second claimant (elder sister). 2. Appellant herein is no other than the Insurance Company, which was shown as second respondent in the aforesaid M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016. 3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act') before the Tribunal, is that first petitioner/claimant is the mother and the second petitioner/claimant is the elder sister of the deceased. The husband of the second claimant deserted her as such she is living with the first petitioner and the deceased. The deceased was the only male child of first petitioner, who was well educated and studied up to B.Com. Deceased was a very bright student. The petitioners are having 7 cows, which used to yield 20 liters of milk per day and the deceased was doing milk business by collecting milk of 50 liters from the neighbourers in the village and was selling the same in Piler Town morning and evening and getting Rs.15,000/- per month. (i) On 12.10.2012, the deceased went to Piler Town on his personal work on a new Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle (un-registered). (i) On 12.10.2012, the deceased went to Piler Town on his personal work on a new Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle (un-registered). After completing his work, he was returning to his home at about 02:30 p.m. on the extreme left side of Piler - Kalikiri main road near Vepulabailu Electric Sub-station slowly and cautiously by observing the vehicles on road, by following due traffic rules and regulations. Then a batch of buffaloes suddenly came across the road on hearing the horns of tractor and tipper. The buffaloes ran in a zigzag manner and suddenly jumped over the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased might have suddenly turned his motorcycle and unable to control, hit the electric pole as a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries to his head and other parts of the body. The first respondent, who is his father, on information took the injured initially to Government Hospital, Piler and on the advice of doctor, he was taken to SVIMS, Tirupati for better treatment. As doctors therein advised him to take the deceased to Chennai for better treatment, the deceased was taken to S.R.M.C Hospital, Chennai on 13.10.2012 and they spent more than Rs.30,000/-. The hospital authorities intimated that the treatment will be very expensive i.e., more than Rs.30,00,000/- but there is no guarantee for recovery of deceased. Hence, the deceased was brought back to SVIMS, Tirupati and was admitted as in-patient. While undergoing treatment on 15.10.2012, he was succumbed to the injuries at about 01:00 a.m. in SVIMS, Tirupati. The efforts made by the petitioners to save the life of deceased proved futile. The Assistant Professor, Forensic Department, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report. (ii) On a complaint given by first respondent, the Station House Officer, Piler Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.204 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and ultimately filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Piler stating that the deceased being the rider himself died in the accident. (iii) The deceased was the only earning member of the petitioners. He would have lived for not less than 50 years, if the accident was not occurred. He would have taken care of the claimants, if he was alive. (iii) The deceased was the only earning member of the petitioners. He would have lived for not less than 50 years, if the accident was not occurred. He would have taken care of the claimants, if he was alive. The accident was occurred due to sudden crossing of batch of buffaloes across the road and jumping over the motorcycle of the deceased, which was un-registered, belonging to the first respondent. Hence, first respondent is vicariously liable to pay compensation. First respondent authorizedly insured his vehicle with the second respondent. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. As the motorcycle belongs to the father of the deceased, he was shown as first respondent. Hence, the claim. 5. First respondent remained ex-parte. 6. Second respondent/insurance company got filed a counter denying the case of the petitioners and resisting the prayer. The substance of the contention of second respondent is that petitioners have to prove the allegations as set out in the Petition. First respondent willfully handed over the vehicle to the deceased, who did not possess valid and effective driving license. The income of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants is to be proved by them. First respondent purchased the motorcycle on 08.10.2012 and got it registered with temporary registration number, which was valid from 09.10.2012 only for a period of one month and even after expiry of one month, first respondent did not get the permanent registration number. So, the offending vehicle was not having any permanent registration number. The amount claimed by the claimants is excessive. The claim of the claimants is not at all sustainable under law. There is no question of liability of the second respondent under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Hence, the claim of the petitioners is to be dismissed. 7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether Varampati Suresh Kumar Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.10.2012 at about 02:30 p.m. due to negligent riding of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle or not? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. Whether Varampati Suresh Kumar Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.10.2012 at about 02:30 p.m. due to negligent riding of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle or not? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. At the time of Award, the Tribunal re-casted the first issue as follows: Whether Varampati Suresh Kumar Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.10.2012 at about 02:30 p.m. near Electric Sub-Station, Vepulabailu, Piler Mandal or not? 9. On behalf of the claimants before the Tribunal, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Ex.B-1 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. 10. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.7,18,500/-towards compensation and apportioned the compensation among the claimants, as above. 11. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid Award of the Tribunal, the un-successful second respondent/insurer filed the present Appeal. 12. In the light of the contentions advanced and the grounds of Appeal, the sole point that arises for consideration is: Whether the Award, dated 16.12.2020, in M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT: 13. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, took a serious exception to the award of the Tribunal by canvassing that a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not at all maintainable by the owner or the person who stepped into the shoes of the owner or the driver and liability under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act would arise by a third party only. Learned counsel would strenuously contend that the first respondent being father of the deceased, for obvious reasons, remained ex parte and allowed the claimants to lay the claim against the second respondent and also against him (R.1). First respondent did get only temporary registration of a newly purchased motorbike. He did not get permanent registration number of it. However, he handed over the vehicle to his son, who met with the accident of his own negligence. First respondent did get only temporary registration of a newly purchased motorbike. He did not get permanent registration number of it. However, he handed over the vehicle to his son, who met with the accident of his own negligence. So, the deceased was rider of the motorbike. As he stepped into the shoes of the owner, he can safely be held as the driver of the motorbike. He was not a third party. The only aspect in this Appeal is as to whether the deceased, who stepped into the shoes of the owner, can be termed as a third party and as to whether the claimants are entitled to lay a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. In support of his contention, he would rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi and others v. the United India Insurance Company and others, 2020 ACJ 627 . He would submit the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining the law laid down in this regard previously, held that a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act by the legal heirs of the deceased, when the deceased himself was the driver of the vehicle, is not at all maintainable. He would submit that, according to the terms of Ex.B-1 - insurance policy, with regard to the personal accident coverage to the owner and driver, it is for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and at best the claimants are eligible to claim the aforesaid sum only by making an appropriate request before the insurance company and even they were not at all entitled to lay a claim under the M.V. Act as the deceased was not a third party. He would submit that the Tribunal totally erred in appreciating the legal principles involved in the matter as such he seeks to allow the Appeal. 14. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, would canvass a contention that a third party is a person other than the Insurance Company and the registered owner. The deceased was not the registered owner and absolutely he was a third party. The Tribunal, by looking into the evidence of RW.1, answered that the deceased can be termed as a third party as such rightly followed the legal principle under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The deceased was not the registered owner and absolutely he was a third party. The Tribunal, by looking into the evidence of RW.1, answered that the deceased can be termed as a third party as such rightly followed the legal principle under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal took into consideration the maximum annual income of Rs.40,000/- as per II Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and rightly awarded the compensation. He would submit that the order of the Tribunal needs no interference. 15. PW.1 was no other than the second claimant being the elder sister of the deceased who put forth the facts in tune with the averments in the claim. Through her examination, Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. Ex.A-1 was the certified copy of FIR. Ex.A-2 was the certified copy of final report. Ex.A-3 was the certified copy of inquest report. Ex.A-4 was the certified copy of postmortem certificate. Ex.A-5 was the certified copy of MVI report. 16. PW.2 was one M. Janardhan Reddy, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence as to the manner in which the deceased drove the motorbike of the first respondent. According to him, the buffaloes suddenly came across the road as such jumped over the motorbike and the motorbike hit the electrical pole as such he died. This is the substance of the evidence of PW.2 - a third party. 17. PW.3 was examined by the claimants to prove the so called income of the deceased. 18. RW.1 was no other than the representative of the insurance company and his chief-examination affidavit was in tune with the contents of the written statement. Ex.B-1 was the attested copy of insurance policy pertaining to the vehicle in question. 19. RW.2 was the person examined on behalf of the second respondent to prove that the deceased was having driving license to drive the motorbike with gear. Ex.X-1 was the authorization letter, dated 21.11.2020, and Ex.X-2 was the online extract of driving license of the deceased. 20. The admitted facts are that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident by driving the motorbike of the first respondent. The first respondent was no other than father of the deceased, who purchased new motorbike and got temporary registration number and as on the date of death of the deceased, he did not obtain the permanent registration number. 20. The admitted facts are that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident by driving the motorbike of the first respondent. The first respondent was no other than father of the deceased, who purchased new motorbike and got temporary registration number and as on the date of death of the deceased, he did not obtain the permanent registration number. The accident in question was not occurred on account of rash and negligent act of any person other than the deceased. The deceased himself was the rider of the motorbike. The manner of the accident, according to the claimants, was that when the deceased was driving the motorbike, all of a sudden, buffaloes entered on the road on account of sounding horn by a tractor and tipper. They jumped over the deceased and the deceased hit the motorbike to electrical pole and that he died. So, the claim was under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. There was no dispute that the deceased died while driving the new Bajaj Pulsar DTS 150 motorbike bearing temporary registration No.AP 03 UBTR 9518. 21. So, the crucial question, in the light of the contentions advanced, is as to whether the claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act by the legal heirs of the deceased, who was driving the motorbike bearing temporary registration No.AP 03 UBTR 9518 of the first respondent and who met with the accident on account of the sudden act of the buffaloes is maintainable? 22. It is no doubt true that under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act one need not prove any rash and negligent act against anybody and a claim under Section 163-A is purely on the ground of 'no fault liability'. But the only legal question which is involved in this matter is as to whether the deceased can be taken as a third party within the meaning of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. 23. But the only legal question which is involved in this matter is as to whether the deceased can be taken as a third party within the meaning of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. 23. Section 163-A of the M.V. Act runs as follows: '163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, 'permanent disability' shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule'. 24. So, as per Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in case of death or permanent disability, the compensation. 25. The contention of the appellant is that the deceased being the son of first respondent and being rider of the motorbike bearing temporary registration No.AP 03 UBTR 9518 stepped into the shoes of the owner and apart from this, it can be safely held that the compensation to the owner and driver shall be governed by the terms of contract entered into between first respondent and second respondent under Ex.B-1 insurance policy. 26. The factual matrix in Ramkhiladi (supra) was that in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 02.10.2006 one Chotelal alias Shivram died. At the time of accident, he was travelling on the motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811. 26. The factual matrix in Ramkhiladi (supra) was that in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 02.10.2006 one Chotelal alias Shivram died. At the time of accident, he was travelling on the motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811. Though there was an allegation that accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of another motorbike bearing registration No.RJ 29 2M 9223 but the claimants therein laid a claim under no fault liability under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act against owner and insurer of the motorbike which was being driven by the deceased. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the claimants and when the matter was canvassed before the High Court, it set-aside the Award of the Tribunal. Then the claimants canvassed the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court.27. The Hon'ble Apex Court relied on its earlier decision in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2009 ACJ 2020 , wherein the factual matrix was that the deceased was driving the motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart from its behind without involving any other vehicle. Claim Petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court while referring the factual matrix in Ningamma (supra), extracted further the observations of the Court that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the M.V. Act cannot apply, wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved as such legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. While relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi (supra) held that in a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act there is no need to plead or establish the rash and negligence because it is based upon the no fault liability. While relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi (supra) held that in a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act there is no need to plead or establish the rash and negligence because it is based upon the no fault liability. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the deceased has to be a third party to lay a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and claimants cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act against the driver and insurer of the vehicle vide registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the liability of the Insurance company is only limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No.5.6 therein further held as follows: '5.6. 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.' 28. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No.5.8 held as follows: '5.8. 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 10.05.2018 i.e., much prior to the amendment in the 2nd schedule. In the facts and circumstances 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.' 29. So, in Ramkhiladi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately held that the claimants shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance as such directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. 30. This Court has gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik and others, 2018 ACJ 2825 wherein the factual matrix of that case was that one Dilip Bhowmik was returning to his house by driving his vehicle bearing No.TR-01-U-0530 and when he reached near the bridge of Agartala Railway Station situated on the bye-pass under Amtali Police Station, he met with an accident and sustained injuries and later he was succumbed to injuries. His legal representatives filed a claim and the Tribunal passed the Award. An Appeal was filed before the High Court by the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased himself was the owner cum driver of the vehicle and he was not a third party. The High Court accepted the contention of the appellant that the deceased was not a third party but however directed the appellant to pay compensation with raider that the said order shall not be treated as a precedent. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No.7 held as follows: '7. The High Court accepted the contention of the appellant that the deceased was not a third party but however directed the appellant to pay compensation with raider that the said order shall not be treated as a precedent. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No.7 held as follows: '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 LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.' 31. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court further referred to its similar earlier decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jhuma Saha and others, 2007 ACJ 818 , wherein the factual matrix was that the owner himself was driving the vehicle and due to his negligence dashed a tree and he died. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed the findings in Jhuma Saha (supra) held that in such circumstances a claim filed by the legal representatives was not maintainable. 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni Devi and others, (2008) 5 SCC 736 , dealt with a similar situation wherein the factual matrix was such that a claim was filed by the legal representative of the deceased under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act for death of one Janak Raj. The deceased was riding motorcycle along with one Sukhdev Raj. Who was actually on the driver's seat is not known. The deceased was riding motorcycle along with one Sukhdev Raj. Who was actually on the driver's seat is not known. The motorcycle was said to have gone out of control and resulted in the accident. Therefore, the legal representatives laid a claim. When the matter was canvassed before the Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that liability under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. Legal heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. For the said purpose only the terms of contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. Further, The Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and others, 2009 ACJ 998 dealt as to whether son of the insured driving motorbike can be taken as a third party. The factual matrix was such that son of the insured was driving the motor vehicle, met with an accident and died. The legal heirs of the deceased laid a claim before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the contentions of the claimants. Later, when the insurance company filed an Appeal before the High Court, it was not answered properly. Therefore, the Insurance Company canvassed the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the contentions of the Insurance Company and allowed the Appeal. 33. In view of the settled legal position, as above, now this Court has to consider whether the claim laid by the claimants under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is maintainable before the Tribunal. Undisputed facts are that the first respondent is the registered owner, which got temporary registration number of the offending vehicle and he allowed his son - deceased to drive the motorcycle. During the course of such raid, the vehicle met with an accident for no fault of others as such the deceased died. As evident from the evidence of RW.1, he answered a question that third party is a person other than the insurance company and the registered owner. Here, first respondent is no other than the father of the deceased who allowed the deceased to ride the motorcycle but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), held that a person who stepped into the shoes of the owner can be termed as owner. Here, first respondent is no other than the father of the deceased who allowed the deceased to ride the motorcycle but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), held that a person who stepped into the shoes of the owner can be termed as owner. It is to be noted that the factual matrix in this case is very clear that the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the first respondent for a drive and during the course of such drive, he met with an accident and died. The accident was not on account of negligence of any person. Police registered the case under Section 304-A IPC and filed final report alleging that the deceased himself drove the motorcycle and died. There is no dispute that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and drove the motorcycle. Apart from this, it can safely he held that he was driver of the motorcycle at the time of accident. 34. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), following the earlier law of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma (supra), when the deceased himself was the rider of the motorcycle, he cannot be taken as a third party. 35. As seen from the judgment of the Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), where compensation was awarded only to the extent of terms and conditions stipulated in Ex.B-1 insurance policy. The Tribunal did not understand the purport of law in Ashalata Bhowmik (supra) and erroneously relied upon the evidence of RW.1, who deposed that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and third party means other than the owner and insurance company. RW.1 was not an authority to say who was the third party. The Tribunal erroneously looked into the aforesaid evidence part of RW.1. 36. Turning to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Lal Sood and others v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others, 1998 ACJ 531 relied upon by the Tribunal, it is a case where the Hon'ble Apex Court looking into the terms of policy held that expression 'any person' would undoubtedly include an occupier of the car who was gratuitously travelling in the car. Absolutely, the aforesaid decision was also relating to a third party. Absolutely, the aforesaid decision was also relating to a third party. In my considered view, the Tribunal erroneously applied the decision in Amrit Lal Sood (supra) to the case on hand though it has nothing to do with a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Hence, the aforesaid decision is not at all helpful to the case of the claimants. 37. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a person who stepped into the shoes of the owner can be taken as a owner. So, the deceased need not be a registered owner of the vehicle in question. He was the son of first respondent, who was the owner, and he was driving the motorbike at the time of accident. Therefore, he stepped into the shoes of the owner. Apart from this, he can safely he held that he is driver of the vehicle as such he was not a third party. 38. The contents of Ex.B-1 insurance policy reveal that there was a specific column with regard to the personal accident coverage to the owner/driver. So, according to Ex.B-1, under the head of personal accident cover for owner and driver, the sum payable to the owner/driver in case of death is Rs.1,00,000/-. So, at best, the claimants may seek to enforce the terms of Ex.B-1 policy under the head of compensation payable to the owner/driver. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), took into consideration the terms mentioned in the insurance policy and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants. Here, though the claimants did not file any claim under the aforesaid conditions but the fact remained is that claimants approached the Tribunal seeking compensation way back in the year 2016. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), while setting-aside the judgment of the High Court directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the terms and conditions in the insurance policy. 39. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that absolutely M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016, laid by the claimants under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not at all maintainable as such the Award of the Tribunal is liable to be setaside. 39. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that absolutely M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016, laid by the claimants under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not at all maintainable as such the Award of the Tribunal is liable to be setaside. The Tribunal on erroneous appreciation of the legal angles involved in the matter went on to uphold the claim of the claimants without valid reasons. Hence, the impugned Award is liable to be set-aside. However, looking into Ex.B-1 - insurance policy, claimants shall be allowed to be paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is meant for compensation to the owner/driver. 40. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part setting-aside the Award, dated 16.12.2020, in M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati with an observation that the claimants are entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the deceased under the personal accident coverage by owner-cum-driver as mentioned in Ex.B-1 - insurance policy and directing the second respondent/appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within one month from the date of this judgment, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, and upon such deposit, claimants before the Tribunal can apportion the same equally. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.