1. This appeal preferred by Insurance Company who had provided cover to the ninth respondent -owner of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-11/A-3486 which vehicle was involved in a road accident when collision took place between this vehicle and the two-wheeler that had occurred on 27.02.2005 at Devarukh Village, Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra State, resulting in the death of rider of the two-wheeler and therefore the dependents of the said persons i.e. respondents 2 to 8 having filed a claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short ‘the Act’] before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. III, at Bijapur resulting in a Judgment and Order for payment of compensation of Rs.3,81,000/-in favour of the claimants and questioning this amount of compensation both on the ground that appellant-insurance Company is not liable to pay this amount and amount is also not in accordance with law.

2. Matter has come up today before the court for orders on IA. 1/2012 to take out substituted service of notice on ninth respondent who is not served, through paper publication.

3. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company submits that after examining the provisions of Section 163A of the Act, this application is not pressed.

4. I have heard Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company and Sri. Chandrakanth Koujalagi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 on the merits of the matter.

5. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company would firstly contend that the pleadings and the material placed before the Court by the very claimants indicated that it was the rider of the two wheeler who was negligent and had caused the accident and therefore learned Judge of the Tribunal is clearly in error in recording the finding on Issue No.1; that the claimants proved that deceased died on account of use of motor vehicle on the date of accident.

6. It is also submitted that while the claim petition was under Section 163A of the Act, the pleadings and the examination was as though it is a petition under Section 166 of the Act and therefore the evidence on record particularly the FIR at Exhibit P. 1 and certified copy of the spot panchanama at Exhibit P.2 assumed significance; that the FIR clearly indicated the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle who died in the accident. It is therefore submitted that there was no liability either on the owner of the other vehicle namely the Tata 407 or the appellant who had provided cover to the owner of the motor vehicle.

7. Without prejudice, Mr. Manvendra Reddy would also submit that the quantification of the compensation payable particularly under the non pecuniary heads is not in accordance with provisions of Section 163A of the Act read with the Second Schedule to the Act; that the total compensation that can be awarded under the conventional heads in claim petition preferred under Section 163A of the Act is only a sum of Rs.9,500/-as it is case of the person died on the spot and the Tribunal awarding a total sum of Rs.45,000/-under the conventional heads is not justified and requires to be corrected.

8. On the other hand Sri. Chandrakanth Koujalagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 submits that the claim petition is one filed under Section 163A of the Act and there is no dispute and even the Judgment and Order passed is also indicative that it is only on the basis of the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act, the claim is allowed in part with costs etc. The claimants while had claimed total compensation of a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-but the amount awarded is only Rs.3,81,000/-which is quite conservative; that this amount is justified under provisions of Section 163 of the Act and there is no need for interference etc.

9. Sri. Chandrakanth Koujalagi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 8 would point