R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award and decree dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinae Judge) Neyveli in and by which the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 4, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased Rajini, who was the husband of first respondent, son of the respondents 2 and 3 and father of the minor fourth respondent, was allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs. 51,37,125/-.

2. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning their liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, facts which are germane and necessary are as under.

4. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased Rajini. They have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 (1) of The Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 13.06.2011, at about 10.30 pm, while the deceased Rajini was travelling as a Pillion rider in the Two Wheeler TVS Star City Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-31-CZ-0378 owned by him and driven by one Balamurugan in the Neyveli Virudachalam Road, near Romapuri Tasmac Shop, a cyclist suddenly darted across the road, with the result, the driver of the vehicle lost his balance. In order to avoid hitting the cyclist, the driver of the vehicle namely Balamurugan applied sudden brake. In the impact, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained multiple head injuries. Immediately, the deceased was taken to PIMS hospital, Puducherry where he was admitted as an in-patient and given treatment. Inspite of best treatment given, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died on 14.06.2011. On the death of the deceased, the respondents herein have filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 60 lakhs for the death of the deceased.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a detailed counter statement. According to the Insurance Company, since the deceased himself was the owner of the vehicle and he is not a third party, on his death, his legal representatives are not entitled to maintain the claim petition. Apart from that the Driver of the vehicle namely Balamurugan was not having a valid licnce to drive the two wheeler at the time of accident. According to the Insurance Company, the claimants are not entitled to maintain the claim petition against the appellant/ Insurance Company as, under Section 147 of The Motor Vehicles Act, the risk of the deceased, who is the owner of the vehicle, is not required to be covered by the Insurance Company and if at all, the claimants/respondents are entitled it can only be to a maximum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Compulsory Personal Accident Coverage as per the Insurance policy and nothing more. Thus, the Insurance company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments contained in the claim petition, the first respondent herein, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1 apart from examining two other witnesses as PWs. 2 and 3. Exs. P1 to P16 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one Mr. Ramesh, Assistant Divisional Manager was examined as RW-1 but no document was marked.

7. In view of the stand taken by the insurance company specifically questioning their liability to pay the compensation amount, the Tribunal formulated a question as to whether the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to maintain the claim petition against the insurer inasmuch as the vehicle was owned by the deceased himself. After analysing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal answered the said question by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the ca