Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The owner Sri Pravendra Singh was driving his vehicle “Tata Sumo” and collided with a tractor, on account of which, he suffered injuries and subsequently died. The dependants of the deceased, Pravendra Singh, filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs. 22,36,768/-. The Tribunal gave an award allowing the claim application awarding Rs. 6,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 6.5% per annum as compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company of the vehicle TATA SUMO, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. Heard Sri Saral Srivastava, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.C.Kesarwani, the learned counsel for the claimants.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the award on three grounds, namely :

1. That the deceased was the owner and driving the vehicle and was not personally insured under the policy and, therefore, his dependants were not entitled for any compensation. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and others, 2008 (2) TAC 752 (SC), as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Meera Bai and others, 2006 (9) SCC 174.

2. The claim application was filed under Section 163-A of the Act showing an income of the deceased at Rs. 1,21,094/- which was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum and, therefore, the claim application was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 (5) SCC 385.

3. The compensation has been awarded without any proof of income of the deceased being filed by the claimants and, accordingly, notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum could have been awarded.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that a comprehensive policy was taken of the vehicle in question, in which the deceased was also insured and, consequently, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision in Chimaji Rao Shirke and another v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., 2000 (3) TAC 585, wherein the Supreme Court held, that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the heirs on the death of the owner who was driving the vehicle.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that necessary proof of the income of the deceased was filed before the Tribunal by way of filing the Income Tax return of the deceased, which was duly considered and accepted by the Tribunal and, therefore, the contention of the appellant that no proof of income of the deceased was filed, was patently erroneous. It was also contended that initially the claim application was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, but, subsequently, an amendment application was filed, which was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 6.8.2007 and thereafter the appeal was converted as having been filed under Section 166 of the Act. The learned counsel contended that the contention of the appellant that the claim application was not maintainable, was wholly erroneous and against the record.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the claim application was maintainable, inasmuch as, the claim application was converted from Section 163-A to Section 166 of the Act. Further, proof of income of the deceased was filed by filing the Income Tax return of the deceased, which was duly accepted. The contention of the appellant on these two issues is patently misconceived and is rejected.

7. Admittedly, the owner was driving his own vehicle, when it met with an accident. The question is, whether the insurance policy covered the personal insurance of the owner or not. In this regard the cover note and the insurance policy has