JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. 1. Whether a paid driver can be treated as a third party and whether compensation can be awarded for the injuries sustained to him, in a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is the question to be decided in this appeal. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.15 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 3. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 14.06.1997, while he was driving a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-14-4373 from Mangalore to Kasaragod, it hit against a bus bearing Reg.No.KL- GA/01/T/8879, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?2,00,000/-. 4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the jeep, appeared before the tribunal, admitting the accident and also the employment of the claimant as the driver of the jeep. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant, Exts.B1 & B2 on the side of the respondent insurer, and Ext.X1 as court exhibit. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claim petition is not maintainable as the claimant was solely at fault for the accident. Challenging this, the claimant has come up in appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 6. While this case was pending before the Division Bench of this Court, the appellant relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malathi c. Salian [ (2003) 3 KLT 460 ] to contend that even if the appellant was negligent and caused the accident, he is still entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. Thereafter, during hearing, the Division Bench raised a doubt on the finding of the Full Bench in Malathi C. (supra) and referred the said issue to a Full Bench, expressing the view that the decision rendered by the Full Bench in Malathi C. (supra) requires reconsideration. Thereafter, during hearing, the Division Bench raised a doubt on the finding of the Full Bench in Malathi C. (supra) and referred the said issue to a Full Bench, expressing the view that the decision rendered by the Full Bench in Malathi C. (supra) requires reconsideration. Thereafter, the Full Bench of this Court considered the afore issue along with another issue raised in MACA No.2144 of 2006. However, the Full Bench further referred the issue raised in this appeal as well as in MACA No.2144 of 2006 for consideration by a Larger Bench. The questions referred for consideration by the Larger Bench were as follows: 1. Whether the injured persons/claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even if it is shown that the accident was on account of the negligence of the injured person/victim? 2. If the injured person/victim is the owner himself, whether the said owner is entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act? 7. The Larger Bench of this Court answered the reference by order dated 11.09.2024, finding that the issue as to whether the claimant is entitled for compensation even though the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the injured/victim, was decided by the apex court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & another [2017 KHC 5644] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & others [2008 KHC 4640], in favour of the appellant that though there is negligence, the insurer cannot raise any defence. It was further held that in proceedings initiated under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation. Hence, the afore issue was decided in the favour of the appellant herein. 8. In this appeal, the only issue raised was regarding negligence and the said issue was referred to the Full Bench and thereafter, to the Larger Bench of this Court, which was decided in favour of the appellant. However, now, the appellant raised a new ground that he was a paid driver and hence, he is a third party and is entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Act. However, now, the appellant raised a new ground that he was a paid driver and hence, he is a third party and is entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The issue regarding entitlement of a driver, who is injured/victim, for compensation under Section 163A of the Act was decided by the apex court in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another [ 2020 (2) SCC 550 ], wherein it was held that the driver will step into the shoes of the owner and is not entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Here, the specific case of the appellant is that he was a paid driver and will not step into the shoes of the owner and he has to be treated as a third party and hence, is entitled for compensation. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer, on the other hand, submitted that even though he is a paid driver, he is an employee of the owner and is not entitled for any compensation and his remedy for compensation is available only under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 . It is further submitted that they had raised the contention before the tribunal that the driver was not a third party, however, the said contention was not considered by the tribunal. 10. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. On a perusal of the impugned award and the grounds raised in appeal, it is clear that the only contention raised was that, though there is negligence on his part, he is entitled for compensation, which is now settled by the apex court in Sunil Kumar (supra), Rajni Devi (supra) and Ramkhiladi (supra). To substantiate the new ground now raised regarding the aspect that the appellant was a paid driver and hence, is entitled for compensation, the appellant relied on Deepal Girish Bhai Soni & others v. United India Insurance Co. ltd. [2004 KHC 595]. The learned counsel for the appellant also distinguishes Ramkhiladi (supra) from the facts of this case that the driver of the vehicle in Ramkhiladi (supra) had borrowed the vehicle from the owner, whereas in the case on hand, the injured was a paid driver. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment in Shivaji & another v. Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment in Shivaji & another v. Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. & others [ 2018 (4) KHC 506 ], wherein the apex court decided only the question of negligence and not the entitlement to claim compensation in respect of the driver of the vehicle, who met with the accident. In Ramkhiladi (supra), the apex court held that the driver cannot be a third party and cannot raise a claim against the owner of the vehicle since the driver steps into the shoes of the owner and the person cannot be a receiver as well as a giver since the insurer is indemnifying the owner in paying compensation. Though the driver is a paid driver or a borrower of the vehicle, the fact remains that under Section 163A of the Act, they cannot be treated as a third party and claim compensation against the insurer. It is true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of “no fault liability”. However, in order to claim compensation, the injured/deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner or insurer of the vehicle, in which he was a paid driver. He will step into the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. In the present case, the parties are governed by a contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance, the liability of the insurer is qua third party only. The liability of the insurer will be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As the injured was a paid driver, he cannot be considered as a third party with respect to the insured. Since the claim under Section 163A of the Act, was made against the owner and insurer of the vehicle, which was being driven by the injured himself, he would step into the shoes of the owner and is not entitled for any compensation. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion as above, though for varying reasons from that held by the tribunal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and hold that the appellant/claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion as above, though for varying reasons from that held by the tribunal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and hold that the appellant/claimant is not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.