1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

2. The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-original opponent no. 2-National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad dated 30/06/2010 in M.A.C.P. No. 492/2009 by which in Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act preferred by the heirs of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said Claim Petition directing the appellant and other opponents to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,95,100/-towards compensation with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till realization.

3. Shri Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in allowing the said Claim Petition directing the appellant-National Insurance Company to pay compensation to the original claimants for the death of the driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the application submitted by the original claimants-heirs of the deceased driver of the motorcycle was under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the deceased had died due to his own negligence and had sustained fatal injuries and, therefore, the original claimants are not entitled to any compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NINGAMMA AND ANR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. reported in 2009 ACJ 2020 as well as the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of APPAJI (SINCE DECEASED) AND ANR Vs. M. KRISHNA AND ANR reported in 2004 ACJ 1289. He has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. JAGATSINH VALSINH reported in 1986 (2) GLR 1423.

4. It is submitted by Shri Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-opponent no. 2 that in case of NINGAMMA AND ANR (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in a similar set of facts and circumstances where the deceased driver had borrowed the motorcycle from its owner and the motorcycle had dashed against a bullock cart proceeding ahead resulting into the death of the motorcyclist the legal representatives of the deceased had filed the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the learned tribunal allowed compensation against the Insurance Company, which was quashed and set aside by the High Court by holding that the claim was not maintainable as there was no tortfeasor involved and in the SLP against the same the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that legal representatives of a person driving the vehicle after borrowing it from the owner meets with accident without involving any other vehicle would not be entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that in the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that borrower steps into the shoes of the owner and the owner cannot himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. It is submitted that in the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RAJNI DEVI reported in 2008 ACJ 1441 wherein it was held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be said to have any application in res