Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rajni Devi & Ors.:

• Section 163-A Inapplicability: Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not apply when the owner of the motor vehicle is involved in the accident, as a person cannot be both a claimant and a recipient under this provision; such claims must be decided based on the terms of the insurance contract (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Contractual Liability for Owner/Passenger Death: While an insurance company's liability is unlimited in cases involving a third party, claims for the death of the vehicle owner or another passenger are governed by the specific terms of the insurance contract rather than statutory unlimited liability (!) (!) .
• Judicial Precedent: The Supreme Court relied on previous judgments, including Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jhuma Saha & Ors., Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, and Prem Kumari & Ors. v. Prahlad Dev & Ors., to establish that Section 163-A has no application when the deceased owner is the tortfeasor or involved in the accident (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Limitation of Coverage: Under the specific terms of the insurance contract in this case, the insurance company's liability was limited to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and they were not liable for any amount exceeding this sum (!) .
• Tribunal Error: The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the insurer's liability depended solely on the use of the motor vehicle without considering who was driving, failing to recognize that Section 163-A was inapplicable when the deceased was the owner (!) (!) (!) .