Joseph, J.

Appellant is the 2nd respondent in a petition filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants. They are the legal representatives of one Anilkumar who died in a motor vehicle accident. It was their case that the said Anilkumar was riding his motor cycle towards his residence and it hit accidentally on a concrete electric post which stood on the eastern side of the road and he sustained injuries to which he succumbed. The 5th respondent in the appeal is the registered owner and the appellant was the insurer. The claim was raised for Rs.4,99,500/-. The Tribunal has placed reliance of the Full Bench judgment of this court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Malathi C. Salian [2003 (3) KLT 460(FB)] and held that the plea that the appellant is not liable cannot be sustained and accordingly, it was found that the application under section 163A is maintainable. It is accordingly that the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- with 8% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation from the appellant and the owner of the motor cycle. It is feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.A.R.George as also learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Jimmy George. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that being an application under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act it is not open to the Tribunal to award compensation to the claimants in a case where the deceased had admittedly borrowed the vehicle from its owner-driver and caused the accident which ultimately culminated in his death. In support of this plea, he relied on the decision of the apex court in Civil Appeal Nos.3538/09 and 3540/09. Therein, the Apex court was considering a case where the deceased was driving a motor cycle which he borrowed from its real owner and it was a case that when it was proceeding on the road, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle stopped suddenly and consequently the deceased dashed against it sustaining fatal injuries and dying on the way to the hospital. It is apposite to refer paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. They read as follows:

"16. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that the Parliament by introducing Section 163A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub section (1) of Section 163A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would 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 concerned.

17. However, in the facts of the present case, it was forcefully argued by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the claimants are not the 'third party', and therefore, they are not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 163A of the MVA. In support of the said contention, the counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi [2008 (5) SCC 736] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors. [2009 (2) SCC 417].

18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B.Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or anoth