B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (2nd respondent) insurer of the bike of the 1st respondent-insured to the claim petition filed this appeal having been aggrieved by the order/award of the learned Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'the tribunal') in O.P. No. 612 of 2008 dated 18.04.2011, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased-Sravan Kumar under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (in brief 'the Act'). In the appeal, the claimants are shown as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the owner of the bike as 3rd respondent.

2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

3. The facts in brief are that the deceased-G. Sravan Kumar, unmarried, aged 20 years as per Ex. A3-Post Mortem report (son of the claimants-G. Manohar and Laxmi aged between 40 and 45 years), is no other than one of the two pillion riders of the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. AP 28 AU 1683 belongs to the 1st respondent-A. Kishore Kumar Goud. On 19.08.2007 while the rider with two pillion riders were proceeding to Shadnagar, at about 11.00 A.M., when they reached near Thimmapur petrol pump, the accident occurred due to collision between the bike and the commander jeep bearing No. AP 02 U 5972.

4. The claim petition averments are that it was due to the bike rider's rash and negligent driving, the bike dashed the opposite coming commander jeep and as a result of which the deceased, who was one of the pillion riders fell down and on the same day succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and there from, the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the bike, without impleading driver or owner or insurer of the jeep.

5. The tribunal under Section 163-A of the Act, while answering the contentions with reference to the facts and legal position within its notice, in paras 27 to 30 on issue Nos. 3 to 5 held that the respondents i.e., owner and insurer of the bike are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, by taking into consideration as per by then settled law of the age of the mother of the deceased boy at 40 years and by deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, out of earnings estimated from the deceased was being M.C.A., student at Rs. 36,000/- p.a. with multiplier 14' for Rs. 2,52,000/- + Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses as per the schedule and Rs. 6,000/- towards love and affection (even not provided in the schedule for love and affection, but for loss of estate) for total of Rs. 2,60,000/- with interest at 7 1/2% p.a. and impugning the same, present appeal is filed by the insurer.

6. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the learned counsel for the insurer in impugning the award of the tribunal in nutshell are that:

(i) The tribunal erred in awarding the compensation against insurer and owner of the bike, by left out the jeep driver's negligence and liability there from of owner and insurer of the jeep if any, though supposed to apportion even not impleaded, from the facts that Ex. A1-F.I.R. was registered against the driver of the jeep even later police filed charge sheet against the bike rider. Negligence, though not needed to plead and prove by the claimants in a claim filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the contributory negligence or negligence of the opposite vehicle or of the deceased/injured as the case may be can be established by the insurer/owner of the vehicle in opposing the claim in discharge of the burden even the claim is under Section 163-A, including to establish any other plea like injured/deceased is not a third party to indemnify by the insurer and placed reliance upon mainly the Apex Court's expression in National Insurance C