Joseph Francis, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the second respondent Insurance Company in O.P.(MV) No.595 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha.

2. The above Original Petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the Act'). The case of the petitioners in the O.P.(MV) is briefly as follows :

On 8.7.2006 at about 1.30 p.m., while deceased Baby Joseph was driving the car bearing Registration No.KL-05M/8364 from west to east along the Ernakulam -Muvattupuzha public road, the offending lorry bearing Registration No.KL-17D/709 came from the opposite direction and hit on the car, as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed on the way to the hospital. The accident has arisen out of the use of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.KL-17/D- 709 and KL-05/M 8364. The petitioners are the wife and children of deceased Baby Joseph. They are claiming compensation from respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and the insurer of the offending lorry. Respondents 3 and 4 were the owner and insurer of the car driven by the deceased at the time of accident. The petitioners claimed Rs.2,75,500/- as compensation.

3. The third respondent remained ex parte. The first respondent filed written statement contending as follows :

The first respondent was the registered owner of the tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KL-17/D 709 involved in the accident and the same was validly insured with the 2nd respondent for the relevant period. At the time of accident, Babu K.Varghese was driving the lorry and he was holding a valid and effective licence with No.L/EM/681/81 and therefore, even if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to get any compensation, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay the same. The second respondent filed written statement admitting that the offending lorry was insured with it in the name of the first respondent and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased. It was also contended that since the accident occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the deceased, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is not maintainable. The 4th respondent filed written statement admitting that the car bearing Registration No.KL-05/M 8364 driven by the deceased at the time of accident was insured with it in the name of the 3rd respondent for the relevant period and contended that the deceased was driving the car through wrong side. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the petitioners who are his legal heirs are not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondents, it was contended.

4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced from both sides. Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B4 were marked. The Claims Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, found that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who was driving the car through wrong side and that the petition being one filed under Section 163A of the Act will come under Chapter XI of the Act, which deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks and that it is the settled position of law that the driver of the vehicle involved in an accident will not be a third party as far as the Insurance Company which insured the vehicle is concerned and found that the second respondent being the insurer of the offending lorry is liable to pay compensation under Section 163A of the Act and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,49,500/- to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from the second respondent. Challenging the liability imposed on the second respondent as the insurer, the second respondent Insurance Company has come up in appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

6. The