C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.

1. These appeals arise from the award dated 16.2.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(M.V) No. 1925 of 2005. The said claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of one Sibi. M.G. who met with a motor vehicle accident on 6.4.2005 and succumbed to the injuries sustained, on 7.4.2005. They are respectively the mother and sisters of the deceased. They claimed Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Sibi and as per the impugned award in these appeals the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,56,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The former appeal has been preferred by the petitioners therein seeking enhancement of the compensation and the latter appeal has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle against the exoneration of the insurance company from the liability to indemnify him and seeking to set aside the impugned award to the extent it saddled him with the liability to pay the compensation to the appellants in the former appeal. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter in accordance with their status before the Tribunal unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:--

"On 6.4.2005 at about 11 p.m. the deceased Sibi @ Babu was travelling on motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-7/AT-6898 ridden by the second respondent, as a pillion rider, through Aluva-Chaiakkudy NH road from north to south. The vehicle belonged to the first respondent/the appellant in the latter appeal and it was insured with the 3rd respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd., the common respondent in both these appeals. When the said motor cycle reached near an over bridge, owing to rash and negligent riding of the 2nd respondent, it hit against the handrail of the over bridge and the motor cycle along with the riders fell down to a depth of 10 metres, on a railway track. Sibi sustained severe injuries and succumbed to them on 7.4.2005 at about 1 a.m. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners filed the aforementioned claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short' M.V. Act') alleging rashness and negligence against the 2nd respondent besides taking necessary averments to make the first respondent/the appellant in the latter appeal vicariously liable and also to make the third respondent, the insurer to indemnify the insured owner of the vehicle, viz., the first respondent. Before the Tribunal the 2nd respondent-rider of the motor cycle remained ex parte and the first respondent, the owner and the 3rd respondent, the insurer filed separate written statements. In their written statements both of them admitted the accident and also the insurance coverage of the offending motor cycle under a packaged policy, at the relevant period. Essentially, the contention of the first respondent was that since the vehicle in question had a valid packaged insurance policy at the time of the accident the insurer is liable to indemnify him. It was also stated in his written statement that the 2nd respondent took the aforesaid office vehicle after the office hours without his permission and had driven the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Going by the tenor of the written statement it is evident that the first respondent had, firstly, attempted to wriggle out of his vicarious liability by virtue of his being the owner of the offending vehicle by contending that the 2nd respondent used the vehicle not in relation with his official duty, that too without permission and in fact, he had driven the same sottish. Further, it was stated therein that there were three riders on the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The 3rd respondent, the insurer in its written statement admitted the insurance policy coverage viz., existence of a valid standard motor package policy in respect of the motor cyc