JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the second respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.464/2009 filed under Section 163A of the Act on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants in the petition and the fifth respondent herein is the first respondent/owner of the vehicle driven by the deceased. 2. The claimants are the parents and siblings of one Joby. According to the claimants, on 13/04/2008 at 08:45 a.m., Joby was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-01/AG-7391 through the Ernakulam-Thrissur National Highway and when he reached the place by name Karayamparambu, a lorry knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed on 15/04/2008. 3. The first respondent/owner of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased remained ex parte. 4. The second respondent/insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-01/AG-7391 admitted the existence of a valid insurance policy at the time of the incident. However, it was contended that the policy did not cover the risk of the rider of the motorcycle and that it covered only third party risks and compulsory personal accident cover to the owner of the motorcycle, provided he was riding the vehicle. Personal accident coverage is available only to the owner cum driver. The deceased, a rider of the motor vehicle is not covered by the policy. Hence, the second respondent/insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The application under Section 163A of the Act is not maintainable. The incident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry which had knocked down the deceased. The police had registered a case. However, the investigation has not revealed the details of the lorry which had knocked down the deceased. 5. On behalf of the claimants, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the second respondent/insurer. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the second respondent/insurer. Exts.X1 and X2 were marked as court exhibits. 6. 5. On behalf of the claimants, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the second respondent/insurer. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the second respondent/insurer. Exts.X1 and X2 were marked as court exhibits. 6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found the question of negligence to be irrelevant in an application under Section 163A of the Act and relying on sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Section II of Ext.B4 policy, held that the second respondent/insurer was liable to indemnify any driver, who was driving the vehicle with the permission of the insured. Holding so, an amount of Rs.4,79,200/- along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs was awarded. Aggrieved, the second respondent/insurer has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that in the light of the dictums in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 KHC 5046 : (2009) 13 SCC 710 ; Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company, 2020 KHC 6008 : (2020) 2 SCC 550 and Kunjila v. Mary, 2024 KLT OnLine 1108 , an application under Section 163A of the Act is not maintainable and hence the Tribunal grossly erred in allowing the application. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, namely the claimants before the Tribunal, relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Kochi v. Ratheesh, Thrissur District, CDJ 2011 Ker HC 691 , that there is no infirmity in the impugned order calling for an interference by this Court. 10. Going by the case of respondents 1 to 4/claimants, the deceased was knocked down by a lorry whose registration number or other details could not be traced out till date. It was a case of hit and run. Admittedly, the fifth respondent is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-01/AG-7391 which was being ridden by the deceased at the time of the incident. It was a case of hit and run. Admittedly, the fifth respondent is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-01/AG-7391 which was being ridden by the deceased at the time of the incident. There is no case for respondents 1 to 4/claimants nor was any evidence led to establish that the deceased was an employee of the fifth respondent owner. Therefore, in such circumstances it can only be concluded that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle of the fifth respondent owner, in which event he stepped into the shoes of the latter. In the light of the dictums in Ningamma , Ramkhiladi and Kunjila (Supra) it can only be held that an application under Section 163A is not maintainable. Such an application would have been maintainable against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 11. The appellant/insurer has also taken up a contention that personal accident coverage under Ext.B4 is available only to the owner/driver, that is, the fifth respondent in this case and so the benefit cannot be given to the deceased. This argument cannot be accepted in the light of the dictums in Ramkhiladi and Kunjila (Supra). That being the position, the impugned Award is liable to be modified to the said extent. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned Award is set aside. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation is granted to respondents 1 to 4/claimants under the personal accident scheme. The said amount shall be deposited by the appellant/insurer along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount on being deposited shall be disbursed to respondents 1 to 4/claimants in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.