B.A. PATIL, J.

1. MFA No. 23745/2010 has been preferred by the appellant/insurer and MFA Cross-Objectors No. 100195/2014 has been preferred by the cross-objectors/claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and M.A.C.T. Gangavathi in MVC No. 329/2008 dated 15.06.2009.

2. Heard. Both the cases are admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts as averred in the claim petition are that on 25.05.2008 at about 4.00 p.m., Khajasab was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration no. KA- 36/Q-8857 from Venkateshwar camp to Gorebal Camp and when he came near Gorebal Camp KPTCL sub-station, he lost control over the motorcycle and caused accident by hitting to the curbstone fixed by the side of the road. As a result of the same, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is further contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs. 3,300/- per month. For having lost the bread earner, the wife, children and the mother of the deceased have filed a claim petition claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. In spite of service of notice, respondent No. 1 did not appear before the Tribunal and he was placed ex-parte. In response to the notice, respondent No. 2/insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement. By denying the contents of the claim petition he further contended that the deceased was not holding valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle at the time of the accident. He further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy and as such, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether petitioners prove that on 25.05.2008 at about 4.00 pm on Sindhanoor- Gangavathi main road, near Gorebal camp, Khajasab was died in a motor vehicle accident i.e. on account of riding of the motor cycle TVS Star bearing No. KA-36/Q-8857 by the deceased?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for the compensation? Form whom, to what extent?

3. What order?

7. In order to prove their case, petitioner No. 3 got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to 8. The respondents have not led any evidence on their behalf.

8. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed by the Tribunal. Assailing the same the appellant/insurer as well as cross-objectors/ claimants are before this Court.

9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer are that the deceased, on his own fault, has caused the accident and he himself is a tortfeasor who stands on the footing of the owner and as such the petition is not maintainable and the appellant/insurer is not liable to indemnify any loss. He further contended that the deceased borrowed the motorcycle from its real owner and no tortfeasor is involved in the alleged accident. He further contended that the person who was driving the vehicle after borrowing it from its owner and if he meets with an accident without involvement of any other vehicle, then he will be stepping into the shoes of the owner and in that light the claim petition is not maintainable. In order to substantiate the said fact, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Ningamma and Another vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2009 ACJ 2020 and he also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sharada G. and Others, 2010 ACJ 977. He further contended that the deceased was not a third party and there is no provision wherein an insured may claim compensation from himself. U