( 1 ) INSURANCE company is the appellant herein. The husband of respondent no. 1 while travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. KAO M-M 3035, the car went out of control and hit against a tree causing death of the insured. He was the owner of the car and he himself was the insured. A claim petition was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, by the legal representatives of the deceased that the monthly salary was rs. 10,000 and deceased was an income tax payer. Tribunal found that his income was only Rs. 3,000. The contention of the insurance company is that the deceased himself was the insured and, therefore, owner or his legal representatives cannot claim compensation in the absence of a personal accident coverage. The insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation of the insured as the policy was taken only for indemnifying the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay damages or compensation for causing injuries to other persons. The contention raised by claimant was that such a defence cannot be taken by insurance company in view of the decision of the Full Bench in National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Malathi C. Salian, 2003 ACJ 2033 (Kerala ). Contention of the insurance company was not accepted by Tribunal and awarded compensation. Hence insurance company filed this appeal.

( 2 ) FIRST contention is that application under section 163-A will not lie as the deceased was drawing more than Rs. 40,000 in an year. Apex Court in Koppula Venkat rao v. State of A. P. , 2004 (2) KLT (SC) (SN) 19 and in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2004 ACJ 934 (SC), held that remedies under section 163-A are available only if annual income of the accident victim is below Rs. 40,000 and others can file claim petition only under section 166. But in this case the Tribunal has found that his monthly income was only Rs. 3,000. If that is so, application filed by legal representatives cannot be rejected on that ground as yearly income of the deceased was only Rs. 36,000.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the insurance company is that insurance policy, Exh. B1, taken in this case only covers the vehicle damages, third party liability and driver's liability and not insured's liability. It is true that it is a comprehensive policy. The total policy amount was Rs. 4,702. Split up is as follows:

A. Own damage Premises on vehicle and non-electrical Accessories Rs . 4,488 Liability-Basic Rs . 160 Legal liability to paid driver Rs . 15 Increased third party property limit Rs . 50 Rs . 4,713 Less: Discount 255 Service tax 244 Rs . 4,702

For own damage Rs. 4,488 was paid. But own damage coverage is only on vehicle and non-electrical accessories. For third party liability Rs. 160 was paid. In the top of the policy it is stated that liability is as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Additional compensation is paid only for the driver's liability and increased third party liability for property damages and no additional premium is paid for covering personal accident.

( 4 ) IT is submitted that application filed by the insurance company itself is not maintainable. But Apex Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC), at para 102, it is held as follows:

" (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.

(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under section 163-A or section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act. "

Absence of coverage of insurance is a defence available to the insuranc