Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal is against an award passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Claim petition was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle against which the claim is raised, and the learned counsel for the insurer of that vehicle.

2. The appellants are the children of Inbichayishabi, who at the age of 65 years, died as a result of the road traffic accident. Their eligibility to claim compensation on such status is not in dispute.

3. The accident was on 17/03/2009 and victim died on 19/03/2009. She was pillion riding on a motorcycle which one of her sons was riding. The offending vehicle belonging to the second respondent was also a motorcycle driven by the first respondent. The Tribunal determined the compensation, but dismissed the application on the ground that the scene mahazar prepared by the police, on appreciation by the Tribunal, tends to show that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was pillion riding. The Tribunal found that a total amount of Rs.1,64,400/- was due as compensation.

4. This appeal stands with twofold contentions. First is against the finding that the application is liable to be dismissed on the aforenoted finding as regards negligence. The second aspect is as to the quantum of compensation.

5. There is no oral evidence on record. The driver of the offending vehicle, who was the first respondent, did not file written statement. The owner and insurer of that vehicle filed written statements. The documentary evidence included Ext.A3, the final report, in terms of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the crime case registered following the incident. That contains the investigator's opinion on the conclusion of the investigation, that the first respondent was at fault and was negligent in driving the motorcycle which he was riding. That being available as the concluding material following the investigation by the police, we are of the view that the Tribunal, without any further material, could not have relied on the contents of the scene mahazar (Ext.B2) to contradict that final report of the investigator to say that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was pillion riding. We say this pointedly, also because the Tribunal proceeded as if there was evidence as to from which direction each of the vehicles came to the spot of the accident. There is nothing in the scene mahazar indicating this aspect. That being so, the distance of the site of the accident as identified in the scene mahazar with reference to the limits of the road margin is of no significance. On the totality of the materials, including the scene mahazar and the contents of the final report at the conclusion of the investigation, the Tribunal could not have but held the first respondent negligent, to fix tortious liability and the liability regarding the accident in question for compensation. We, therefore, reverse the Tribunal's finding on the issue of negligence and hold that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the first respondent in riding the motorcycle belonging to the second respondent. This means that the first respondent is liable to pay compensation and the second respondent is vicariously liable to pay such amount. The insurer, having admitted the policy cover, is liable to satisfy the award.

6. Before proceeding further, we take note of the submission of the insurer that the pillion rider is not at all entitled to the benefit of the insurance cover. Reliance is placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V. [(2008) 7 SCC 428]. That decision was one where the case related to the pillion rider of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and the claim was against the rider of that vehicle and insurer of that particular vehicle. Here, the deceased was pillion riding another vehicle and