1. This statutory appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the judgment and award made by the MACT, Kamrup No. 2 in MAC Case No. 2547/2006.

2. One Sintu Ali was travelling by riding motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01/H/2871. Suddenly, he met with an accident and as a result, sustained injury and died. The parents of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. Learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 3,36,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the claim petition.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant/respondents.

5. From the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the grounds taken in the appeal, it appears that the Insurance Company has challenged the award basically on the following two grounds:

(i) The accident occurred due to fault of the deceased himself as no other vehicle was involved and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to compensation as there was no other tort feasor.

(ii) The deceased borrowed the motorcycle from its owner and thereby stepped into the shoes of the owner and therefore not entitled to claim compensation, inasmuch as, the deceased was not a third party and as per terms of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death or injury of the owner.

Point No. 1.

6. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. S. Dutta, placing heavy reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi Rajbal Singh Thakur reported in 2008 ACJ 1280, submitted, that the accident having taken place due to negligence of the deceased himself, he cannot be considered as victim under Section 163-A and therefore, claimants are not entitled to compensation. I feel it unnecessary to burden the judgment by quoting the decision of the Shanti Devi Rajbal Singh (supra), as the said decision has already been rendered per in curium by subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 1022/2013 for being contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385.

7. Section 163-A of the MV Act reads as under:

“163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.”

8. It would appear from Sub-section (2) of Section 163A that in a claim petition under Section 163 A, the victim or claimants are not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned, or of any other person. Theref