JUDGMENT :

R. POORNIMA, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award passed in MCOP No.146 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (1^st Additional District Court), Tuticorin, dated 24.02.2014.

2.The brief case of the claimant are as follows:-

On 17.11.2012, at about 04.00 pm, while the deceased Manimegalai and her brothers Rengarajan and Asokan were waiting at the bus stop at North Muthulapuram to board a bus to Tuticorin. At that time, a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.TN-69-H-0632 belonged to the 1^st respondent, insured with the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company and driven by the 1^st respondent from north towards south at the same road, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the deceased Manimegalai and her brother Rengarajan. The said vehicle also dashed an auto rickshaw bearing No.TN-69-AZ-0579, which was parked on the road and thereafter rammed into a tea shop before coming to halt. In the accident, the said Manimegalai sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot.

3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 37 years and was doing tailoring work, thereby, earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by her husband seeking compensation of Rs.28,00,000/-, for the death of his wife in the alleged accident.

4. The claim petition was contested by the respondents 1 and 2 by filing a separate counter. They disputed the manner of accident as projected by the claimant and also we need their liability to pay the compensation contending that the accident did not occur due to any negligent act of the first one, but was the result of a tyre burst. Apart from that they also denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, he was examined himself as P.W.1 and 3 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under "no fault liability" as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a total compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Out of the said amount, the claimant being the husband of the deceased is entitled to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.12,500/- each to the respondents 3 and 4, being the parents of the deceased, against which the present appeal has been filed on the following among other grounds:-

a) The Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant, even though he had established the case by way of producing documents Exs.P1 to P3;

b) The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation for the death of the deceased;

c) The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that for filing the claim petition under Section 163-A, only two ingredients alone be necessary i.e., there should be an accident and the said accident must be caused by a Motor Vehicle and on that basis, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation.

d) It is further contended that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was duly insured with the 2^nd respondent and as such, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation and that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially when both the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company have not questioned the application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and under these circumstances, prays for allowing the appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company made his submission in support of the findings of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. The deceased was a third pa