Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No. 1599 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, an application filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation on account of the death of one Abdul Gafoor (husband of the 1st appellant, father of 2nd and 3rd appellants and son of the 4th appellant) in a motor accident which occurred on 18.4.2013, while he was riding a motor cycle bearing No.KL-57/A-3161 along Thamarassery-Kozhikode Road. The motor cycle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent. When the motor cycle reached the place of accident, a dog jumped in front of it. The deceased lost control of the motor cycle and it capsized, resulting serious injuries to him, who succumbed to injuries at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Claiming a total compensation of 2,94,000/- from the owner and insurer of the motor cycle, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent owner was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent insurer filed written statement contending that, the policy issued in respect of the motor cycle in question is only to comply with the statutory requirements of Chapter XI of the Act (i.e., against third party risks). In the said policy the liability of the insurer is specified and that does not include the rider of the motor cycle. An extra premium of 50/- was collected from the insured to cover personal accident to owner-cum-rider. Since the deceased was not the owner of the motor cycle the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. The insurer has also contended that, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and that, the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

3. Before the Tribunal Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the appellants and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the 2nd respondent insurer that it has no liability under the policy, since the policy covered only the owner-cum-rider and not the rider who is not the owner of the motor cycle. The Tribunal has also noticed that, the claimants have not produced the registration certificate of the motor cycle to prove its ownership at the time of accident. The Tribunal held that, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants under Section 140 of the Act because the liability is on the owner at the time of accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal.

5. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.

6. The fact that the accident occurred as the deceased lost control of the motor cycle when a dog jumped in front of that vehicle is not in dispute. As such the accident is a self made one, occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased himself, who was also charge sheeted by the Police in Ext.B2 charge sheet.

7. In is trite law that in a claim under Section 166 of the Act, for fixing liability on the respondents, who are the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle, it is imperative for the claimants to prove that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver or the owner of that vehicle. Thus, negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the offending vehicle is a prime consideration in a claim under Section 166 of the Act. Therefore, where the pleadings and the evidence on record on the side of the claimant are absolutely silent on this crucial aspect of the matter, a claim under Section 166 of the Act cannot be sustained.

8. However, the absence of a specific pleadings in the claim petition filed by the victim or his/her legal heirs will