BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.

1. Whether the insurer is entitled to reimbursement by the insured of the amount deposited by them satisfying an award passed under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act when the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ultimately finds that the claim is not covered by the Insurance Policy issued in respect of the vehicle involved in the motor accident, is the question raised in this appeal. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are stated as follows: Kochuthressia, the deceased in this case, was a pillion rider on a motor cycle driven by her son, the 4th respondent, on 21.11.2003. Due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the 4th respondent, Kochuthresia fell down on the road and was fatally injured. She succumbed to the injuries on the next day. Her husband, two daughters and son, as petitioners 1 to 4 respectively, filed O.P.(M.V.) No. 78 of 2004 under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act) in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (for short, the Tribunal) claiming compensation on account of her death, from the 4th respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle, and the appellant, the insurer of that vehicle. They were respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the Original Petition. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the 1st petitioner expired. His children, namely, the petitioners 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent herein were recorded as his legal heirs. The respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal are the petitioners 2 to 4 in the Original Petition.

2. The learned Tribunal passed an order, on I.A. No. 172 of 2004 filed in the Original Petition, on 8.10.2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants under S. 140 of the Act. The 4th respondent and the appellant were made liable for that amount. The appellant, being the insurer, was directed to deposit the same. Accordingly, the appellant deposited the said amount on 12.12.2005 and the claimants have realised their respective shares.

3. The learned Tribunal, after inquiry, found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the 4th respondent and that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 2,02,000/- as compensation under various heads. The appellant contended before the Tribunal that the vehicle was covered only by an 'Act only Policy' which did not cover a pillion rider. The Insurance Policy was produced before the Tribunal and it was marked as Ext.B1. After considering Ext.B1, the learned Tribunal found that the risk of the deceased, being a pillion rider, was not covered by that Policy. Hence, the appellant was exonerated from liability to indemnify the owner and the entire liability to pay compensation to the claimants was fastened on the 4th respondent. The Tribunal did not pass any order directing the 4th respondent to reimburse Rs. 50,000/- already deposited by the appellant based on the award under S. 140 of the Act. Therefore, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 2545 of 2011 before the Tribunal for reviewing the award and directing the 4th respondent to deposit the amount paid by them. But, the Tribunal has dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the award and the order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Shri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. A.N. Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to3 and Shri. T.C. Suresh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

5. During the course of arguments, a question as to whether this appeal has to be heard by a Division Bench or a Single Judge of this Court has come up for consideration. Therefore, we shall first consider that question. S. 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 (for short, the High Court Act) deals with the powers of Single Judge. Sub-sections (1) to (13) enumerate various matters on which a Single Judge can exercise the powers of the High Court. As far as the appeal on hand is concerned,