JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Ms. S. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. M. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the judgment and award dated 10.06.2013 passed in MAC Case No.231/2009 whereby the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur had awarded an amount of Rs.3,94,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. The ground of objection taken in the instant Memo of Appeal is that the present case would not be maintainable in terms with Section 163A of the Act of 1988, and as such, the learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation. 4. Ms. S. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was the son of the owner of the vehicle, and as such, the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner at the time of the accident, and as such, the compensation which would have been payable at best would have been in terms with the contract of insurance entered into by the Appellant Insurance Company with the owner of the vehicle and nothing more. 5. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take up the facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings. A Maruti car bearing registration No.AS-12-F-4096 was owned by one Santosh Upadhyaya. The said vehicle was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company. On 14.04.2009, when the son of the owner, one Rajib Upadhyaya (since deceased) was driving the said vehicle, he met with an accident and unfortunately he expired. It is under such circumstances, a claim proceedings was filed under Section 163A of the Act of 1988. The Appellant Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement and took amongst others the plea that the offending vehicle was not driven properly and there was a breach of Section 149 of the Act of 1988, and as such, the Appellant Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation. 6. The Appellant Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement and took amongst others the plea that the offending vehicle was not driven properly and there was a breach of Section 149 of the Act of 1988, and as such, the Appellant Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation. 6. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed three issues which are reproduced herein under:- (i) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to use of the offending vehicle in question? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) What relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled to get from the O.Ps. under the law and equity? 7. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award dated 10.06.2013, awarded an amount of Rs.3,94,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 8. This Court has perused the materials on record including the additional affidavit filed before this Court wherein at Annexure-B, the insurance policy has been enclosed. From a perusal of the said insurance policy, it is seen that there was a personal cover taken under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 for the owner/driver to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. 9. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now consider the prevalent law in this regard. The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Others , reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 had duly dealt with the provisions of Section 163A of the Act of 1988 and observed that the liability under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both a claimant as well as the recipient. The heirs of the owner could not have maintained a claim in terms with Section 163A of the Act of 1988. For that purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could have been taken recourse to. This Court finds it relevant in this regard to take note of the paragraph No.7 of the said judgment which is reproduced herein under:- “ 7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. This Court finds it relevant in this regard to take note of the paragraph No.7 of the said judgment which is reproduced herein under:- “ 7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof.The Tribunal, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in taking the view that while determining the amount of compensation, the only factor which would be relevant would be merely the use of the motor vehicle.” 10. From a perusal of the said paragraph, it is seen that in the case where the third party is involved, the liability of the Insurance Company would be unlimited. However, in the case of compensation, when compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract the claim of the Insurance Company would depend upon the terms thereof. 11. Taking into account the above proposition of law, it is the opinion of this Court that the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein could not have maintained a proceedings under Section 163A of the Act of 1988. The claimant as well as the owner of the vehicle at best would have been only entitled to the amount which was taken as a personal cover, i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgment and award by which an amount of Rs.3,94,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum is required to be interfered with. 12. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that there was a contract of insurance entered by and between the owner/Respondent No.2 herein and the Appellant Insurance Company whereby the Appellant Insurance Company was contractually obligated to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the owner/Respondent No.2 of the vehicle on account of the accident. 13. 12. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that there was a contract of insurance entered by and between the owner/Respondent No.2 herein and the Appellant Insurance Company whereby the Appellant Insurance Company was contractually obligated to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the owner/Respondent No.2 of the vehicle on account of the accident. 13. Accordingly, this Court therefore modifies the impugned judgment and award dated 10.06.2013 passed in MAC Case No.231/2009 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur thereby observing and directing the Appellant Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim proceedings within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of the instant judgment. The said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be deposited before the before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur within the period stated herein above. 14. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur upon receipt of the said amount and upon an application being filed by the claimant providing due bank details transfer the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with the interest to the bank account of the claimant directly after proper verification. 15. With the above observations and directions, the instant Appeal stands disposed of. 16. Return the LCR.