JUDGMENT : The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on 05.04.2017 in O.P (M.V) No.3441 of 2003. The appellant is the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, who is none other than the insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners 1 to 4 and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition. 3. The appeal on hand is filed challenging the liability fixed by the Tribunal on the 2nd respondent, the insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-08-R-8116 to indemnify the 1st respondent, the insured. 4. The facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are summarised hereinbelow:- On 31.03.2003 at 7.30 pm while one Mr.Moidheen was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-08-R-8116 through Shornur -Thrissur public road towards west, alongwith one Sacariya, a friend of him on the pillion seat, he lost control over the motorcycle near Atoor Mosque and thereby it dashed against an electric post. Injuries were caused to himself as well as the pillion rider. They were rushed to Aswini Hospital, Thrissur, but, Mr.Moidheen succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, at the hospital. 5. Alleging that the motorcycle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent and claiming a total sum of Rs.3,80,000/-as compensation, the Original Petition was filed before the Tribunal. The son of the deceased was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the Original Petition. 6. All respondents were served with notice from the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 3 did not turn up to contest the Original Petition, in spite of service of notice on each of them and therefore they were declared as ex parte. 2nd respondent filed written statement as well as additional written statement. The Original Petition was sought to be dismissed as not maintainable for the reason that the deceased himself was at fault. A certificate of insurance was admittedly issued for the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-08-R-8116 at the relevant time of the motor accident. 7. During pendency, amendment was sought in the Original Petition to the effect that petitioners are limiting their claim to Rs.50,000/-under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V Act’) 8. A certificate of insurance was admittedly issued for the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-08-R-8116 at the relevant time of the motor accident. 7. During pendency, amendment was sought in the Original Petition to the effect that petitioners are limiting their claim to Rs.50,000/-under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V Act’) 8. The amendment sought was opposed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The amendment was allowed and the claim was limited to the interim compensation payable under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Thus, the Tribunal confined its consideration to the entitlement of the petitioners to get interim compensation under Section 140 M.V Act. The Tribunal arrived at a finding affirmatively that the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 140 of the M.V Act. 9. It has been brought to notice that the motor accident in question was occurred while the victim of the motor accident himself was driving the vehicle owned by the insured of that vehicle, with his permission. Therefore, he has stepped into the shoes of the owner of that vehicle, and when the motor accident was occurred due to his own negligence, his claim for compensation under Section 166 M.V Act cannot be sustained. Even a claim under Section 140 MV Act cannot be sustained. 10. It has been held by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi [( 2008 (4) KLT 145 (SC) = (2008) 5 SCC 736 ] that a person who borrowed motor vehicle from its real owner, who was also authorised to drive the said vehicle by it’s owner, would step into the shoes of the owner of that vehicle. When the fact that the accident was occurred when the deceased lost control of the motorcycle due to crossing of the road by a dog is not in dispute, the conclusion is irresistible that, the accident is a self made one, occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself. Having been stepped into the shoes of the owner by riding the vehicle with the permission of the owner, the policy being an Act only one, his claim for compensation will be defeated. 11. Having been stepped into the shoes of the owner by riding the vehicle with the permission of the owner, the policy being an Act only one, his claim for compensation will be defeated. 11. In the case on hand, the victim of the motor accident lost control of the motorcycle while riding it and admittedly due to the fatal injuries sustained by him, he died. His legal representatives preferred a claim petition, seeking compensation and during it’s pendency got the claim petition originally filed under Section 166 M.V Act amended by limiting the claim to Rs.50,000/-under Section 140 M.V Act. It was not disputed that the motor accident was resulted from the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Therefore, for the reasons that the motorcycle was ridden by the deceased with the permission of it’s owner and thus, stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, who was it’s insurer also, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim for compensation under Section 140 M.V Act. A reading of Section 140 M.V Act would make it clear that liability cannot be fastened on the insurer, since it’s liability is limited to indemnifying the insured in respect of the compensation payable to the petitioner. Therefore, only when the owner/insured is made liable, liability can be fastened on the insurer under Section 140 M.V Act to indemnify the insured. When the driver of the offending vehicle by obtaining permission from the owner/insured to ride the vehicle in question and caused the motor accident by his own negligent riding, he cannot get compensation under Section 140 M.V Act. The Tribunal by awarding Rs.50,000/-as compensation under Section 140 M.V Act in favour of the petitioner has committed a grave error which can only be rectified by reversing the order assailed. The appeal succeeds for the reasons and is allowed and the impugned award is set aside.