This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 20.8.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.136 of 2014 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Gobichettipalayam, wherein and whereby the Tribunal directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.9,89,000/- to the respondents for the death of the deceased Kumar in a road accident occurred on 09.2.2014.

2. Brief facts are that on 9.2.2014 at about 19.30 hours, the deceased Kumar was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-39 BC 2097 on Villankoil to Kavindapady main road. When he came near Kamatchiamman temple at Vellankoil, a dog suddenly crossed the road. On seeing the dog, the deceased suddenly turned his motorcycle, but he lost control over the vehicle and slipped on the road. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained severe injuries over his head, legs, chest and multiple injuries all over the body. After the accident, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, where from he was referred to CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, but succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.24 of 2014 was registered by Siruvallur police under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and was working as Manger in M.P. Shantex Mill, Mannarai and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Stating that the accident occurred only because a dog suddenly crossed the road, the respondents, who are parents of the deceased have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs.

3. Denying the accident, the appellant insurance company filed counter stating that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased. It is stated that no extra premium was paid by the deceased to cover the risk of the owner of the motorcycle. The deceased being the owner of the motorcycle, as no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of the owner and as the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents. The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are denied by the appellant. The compensation claimed by the respondents under various heads is on the higher side and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the second respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and one Thangavel was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. One Vincent, Administrative Officer of the appellant was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked.

5. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that though the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased since the policy issued for the motorcycle involved in the accident is a package policy, the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, deducting one-third towards personal expenses and adopting multiplier 18, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency. Adding conventional damages, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.9,89,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Challenging the award, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant in a case where the victim himself is the owner of the vehicle and the Tribunal also failed to see that the claim for the owner/insured of the vehicle is neither required to be covered under Section 147 of MV Act, nor covered under Ex.R1-policy. He would submit that the Tribunal has ignored the correct legal position and instead referred on a decision which w