1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) in MVC No.714/2015 ( Rajjan @ Roop Basant Rai Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimant filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The facts of the present case, are that, on 03.11.2010, the owner of the vehicle was driving tractor bearing registration No.MP49-M-2915 with 6 cement electricity poles, when tractor turned turtle and under the weight of the tractor, the driver-cum-owner got crushed and died.

3. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prior to the amendment, there was no need for any proof of negligence and, therefore, the compensation should have been paid even in favour of the owner or driver.

4. Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company appearing through video conferencing, in his turn, submits that there are two issues, namely, as to whether the owner-cum- driver can be indemnified by the insurance company for the own acts of the owner/driver; the second issue is that the tractor was insured for the agricultural purposes and if there was a violation of the policy, then still the claim will be payable or not?

5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 , wherein it is held that Section 163-A claim is based on no-fault liability principle only means that fault or negligence or wrongful act, neglect or default or driver/owner of offending vehicle does not need to be established for award of compensation under Section 163- A/Sch. II. This does not mean that it is unnecessary to even file Section 163- A petition against driver/owner/insurer of the offending vehicle which caused the accident.

6. It is further held that in a claim under Section 163-A, the deceased/victim has to be a third party in relation to vehicle in question. Mere own use of motor vehicle by owner/borrower/permissive user does not entitle such person(s) to maintain Section 163-A petition against the insurer of their own/borrowed vehicle. It is also held that owner/borrower/permissive users are not "third party" in relation to their own/borrowed vehicle.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, when the facts and circumstances of the present case are tested in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra), it is evident that the deceased, being the owner-driver, cannot maintain a claim against the insurer for his own fault.

8. In view of the above, the present miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.