S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court II Judge) in M.C.O.P.No.2357 of 2013, the appellant Insurance Company has come up with this appeal.

2. In this case, the husband of the deceased is the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident had occurred on 09.11.2012, about 8.45 hours, when the deceased viz. Vijayalakshmi was travelling as a pillion rider in the Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 BR 1141, driven by her husband/the 5th respondent herein, while on the way from their residence to a Temple, along 7th Main Road, Dhandeswaran Nagar, Velachery, near the junction of 3rd Avenue. It so occurred, when the 5th respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and turned towards his right, without noticing the proper sitting posture of the pillion rider, thereby, the pillion rider fell down, sustained fatal injuries and died on the same day. The claimants 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the deceased and claimants 1 and 4 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, respectively. Since the husband of the deceased drove the offending vehicle and caused the accident, he has been arrayed as the owner and driver of the vehicle in the claim petition filed under Section 166 and Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants have sought a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased.

3. The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim petition before the Tribunal, vehemently contending that they are not liable to compensate the claimants, as the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the husband of the deceased. Further, according to them, the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined. The father-in-law of the deceased, viz. Mr. P. Arunachalam was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr. Sivakumar, an eyewitness to the accident, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits P1 to P13 were marked in support of their claim. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one Mr. A. Stephen was examined as R.W.1 and two exhibits vide Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Details of the Exhibits would run thus:      

5. On consideration of the available oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the two-wheeler, i.e. the husband of the deceased. Further, on the question as to whether the Insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to compensate the claimants since the deceased is not a third party to the vehicle, the Tribunal, placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nallasivam and others (2014 ACJ 1595) and also relying upon Ex.R2 Insurance Policy, held that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to compensate the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 19,01,000/- towards the death of the deceased. The break-up details of the compensation