JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]

This appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The claimants are the wife and children of the owner cum driver of the vehicle which met with an accident.

2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased namely K.Soundararajan paid an additional premium of Rs.100/- to cover his own risk, i.e. compulsory personal accident to owner cum driver. The deceased worked as a Maths Assistant Professor in Arignar Anna Government Arts College, Namakkal and he was drawing salary a sum of Rs.44,037/- per month. Stating that the petitioners have lost their moral and economical support of the deceased, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that as per the policy the claimants who are the dependants of the owner cum driver of the vehicle are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- because of the extra premium paid by the claimants himself.

3. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the owner of the insured vehicle and the vehicle was driven by him. It is admitted that the deceased himself was the tortfeasor and as car driven by the deceased hit the barricade. No other vehicle is involved. Though the deceased was injured very badly, he succumbed to injuries later. In view of the fact that the liability is limited to the extent of cover as per the policy, the Insurance Company disputed the liability.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of this Court and the provision of Motor Vehicles Act to submit Section 137(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not support the claimants/appellants as the additional premium was only towards Personal Accident Cover up to 2 lakhs. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.1428 of 2017 dated 26.10.2017, in Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. R.Rekha, reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC

674 wherein it is held as follows:

“26. As far as the present case is concerned, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the two wheeler owned by him. Admittedly, the deceased himself was the owner of the two wheeler. At the time of accident, the driver of the two wheeler suddenly applied brake and hit a cyclist which led to the accident. No other motor vehicle has been involved in this case. Thus, the accident did not involve any other motor vehicle other than the one in which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. Therefore, the liability of the insurance company is only to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the third person or in respect of damages of property. While so, the insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the deceased who himself was the owner of the vehicle and when no other motor vehicle was involved in this case. Therefore, the quesiton of the insurer being liable to indemnify the deceased/owner of the vehicle does not arise. Since the deceased himself was the owner of the two wheeler and not a third party, the claim petition filed by the claimants will not come within the purview of Section 146 or 147 of The Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of payment of compensation. Therefore, we hold that the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves only to be allowed. At the same time, it is needless to mention that the claimants are entitled for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- only towards Personal Accident Cover proportionate to the premium paid by the deceased.

27. Before parting with, we are pained to observe that as per the Indian Motor Tariff, the compensation payable to the legal heirs in case of death or bodily injury suffered by the owner of the vehicle is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- only in case of two wheeler and R