P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. The challenge raised by the appellant Insurance Company is against the award passed by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs. 2,13,500/- in respect of the death of a person who was driving a car bearing No. KL. 9/U-4744, which belonged to his wife, (who was the first respondent before the Tribunal) and insured by the appellant. The claim was preferred by the children of the deceased and the first respondent as aforesaid.

2. The accident occurred was on 26.03.2007. The car was being driven by the deceased. When he reached the place of occurrence, he lost control over the vehicle and it dashed against a culvert on the side of the road, resulting in serious injuries leading to his death, which was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, by the grown-up children of the deceased, arraying their mother/the owner of the car as the first respondent and the appellant as the insurer of the vehicle. The wife of the deceased, i.e. owner of the car did not contest the matter and was declared as ex parte. The resistance made by the appellant insurance company was that the vehicle, though was covered by a 'package policy', it was an instance of 'self accident' and as such, there was no liability for covering the risk. It was also pointed out that, Ext. B2 policy covered only the risk of the owner-cum-driver that too, for an extent of Rs. 2 lakhs, which could not be pressed into service as the vehicle was not driven by the owner-cum-driver at the relevant time.

3. The Tribunal, however awarded compensation under different heads and fixed the total amount payable as Rs. 2,13,500/-, which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 9% per annum; the correctness and sustainability of which is sought to be challenged by way of this appeal.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. (The learned Counsel submits that she is appearing for the respondents 1 to 3). The appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay, wherein urgent notice was ordered on 16.10.2015 and the service is complete. But the fact remains that the claim petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 against the owner of the vehicle, who was arrayed as first respondent before the Tribunal. How such claimants could join hands with the first respondent/owner of the vehicle and contest the matter jointly by filing a 'joint vakalath' in the appeal, is a matter of mystery, though the third respondent herein/insured happened to be the mother of the claimants 1 and 2, who pursued the proceedings against the owner/mother before the Tribunal. This Court however does not intend to proceed with any further steps in this regard, in view of the verdict proposed to be passed.

5. Coming to the merits of the case, the point to be considered is whether any liability could have been fastened on the shoulders of the Insurance Company, though the claim was preferred under Section 166 of the Act. The accident, admittedly is a self invited accident. Under such circumstance, whether the liability could be mulcted upon the Insurance Company had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha (2011 (4) KLT 821(SC)). The Apex Court made it clear that, though there is no burden to plead or establish negligence under Section 163A of the Act, in view of conspicuous absence of the provisions like sub-section (4) of Section 140, it was quite possible for the Insurance Company to plead or establish that negligence was on the part of the parties concerned. Under such circumstance, the liability could not be ordered to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. The matter was subsequently considered by a Full Bench of this Court as well, as borne by the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Joseph [2012 (2) KLT 132 (FB)](to which one of us was also a member).

6. The first point to be considered is