JUDGMENT :

(P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.)

1. Appeal is at the instance of the Insurer of the vehicle (motor cycle) on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. Grievance is against the fixation of liability in a claim preferred by the children of the deceased arraying the other son and husband of the deceased as the rider and owner of the vehicle which was insured by the Appellant.

2. On 28.02.2011, the deceased namely Smt. Biso Bai, aged about 50 years was travelling on a motor-cycle bearing registration No. CG-07-LD-3608 ridden by her son/3rd Respondent and owned by her husband/4th Respondent, which admittedly was insured by the Appellant. While so, another unknown motor-cycle dashed against the former motor-cycle causing fatal head injuries to the pillion rider ultimately leading to her death. This led to the claim petition preferred before the Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') arraying the rider, owner and insurer of the motor-cycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider.

3. The Appellant-Insurer contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was not a 'third party' in respect of the vehicle insured by them, more so, since it was being owned by her own husband and ridden by her own son; while compensation was claimed by the other two sons. Such other incidental grounds were also raised to dispute the claim.

4. Based on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal held that, though the accident had happened because of the collision between two motor-cycles, there was no need or necessity for the Claimants to plead or prove the negligence in a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal observed that no evidence was adduced to prove the monthly income of Rs.3000/- but it was simultaneously observed that it was quite possible for the deceased to have earned Rs.100/- per day doing some or the other work and as such, Rs.3000/- was taken as the notional monthly income to work out the compensation. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier of 13 was applied and deducting 1/3rd income towards the personal expenses, the compensation in respect of loss of life was fixed as Rs. 3,12,000/-. Granting Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, the total compensation was fixed as Rs.3,21,500/-; which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its satisfaction. The correctness of the said award is put to challenge in this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the challenge is mainly of two folds; firstly, that the deceased is not a 'third party' entitled to get any compensation as she was the wife of the owner of the vehicle and further it was being ridden by her own son; and more so when the claim was sought to be preferred by the other two sons against the negligent brother/rider and the father of the claimants (owner). The learned counsel sought to place reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Ram Khiladi & Another v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another; (2020) 2 SCC 550 holding that the claim petition preferred under Section 163-A, without impleading the rider/driver/owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is not maintainable. The second ground highlighted is that the Claimants, aged 32 and 29 years at the time of filing of the claim petition (who are the sons of the deceased) were never dependent on the income of the deceased in any manner and were having independent means of livelihood. As such, no compensation towards of loss of dependency could have been mulcted upon the shoulders of the Appellant. We find it difficult to accept both the above contentions for the reasons noted below.

6. The factual position considered by the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi (supra) was that the deceased rider was travelling on the vehicle which was borrowed by him; wh