JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the award and decree dated 19.06.2006 in O.P. No.27 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellant - Insurer preferred the present appeal challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization fixing the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally as against the claim of Rs. 8,00,000/- laid by the claimants towards compensation for the death of deceased caused in a road accident occurred on 04.06.2004. 3. Heard Ms. I. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Despite service of notice on respondent No.3 - Insured, none appears. 4. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and, therefore, the appellant - Insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended by the appellant that the deceased was none other than the son of the insured and, therefore, he is not a third party and only a legal heir of the insured, as such, the Insurer is not liable to pay any compensation since risk of the deceased was not covered by the policy. It is also contended by the appellant that the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has to be made as per the Structural Formula arrived at in the Schedule - II of the Act and, therefore, as per the Schedule, income of the deceased had to be below Rs. 40,000/- for making a claim under Section 163-A of the Act. Whereas, in the present case, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month according to the claimants and, therefore, the Tribunal observed that the income of the deceased could be taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month, the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was not sustainable. 5. Whereas, in the present case, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month according to the claimants and, therefore, the Tribunal observed that the income of the deceased could be taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month, the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was not sustainable. 5. It is also further contended by the appellant that even under Section 163-A of the Act though negligence or fault of the owner of the vehicle need not be proved, a claim by the legal representatives of the person responsible for the accident was not maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer, the Tribunal without considering the said specific ground raised by the appellant, erroneously awarded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of the petition till realization. 6. Supporting the award, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants would contend that the Tribunal on consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, more particularly, depositions of PW.1 and PW.2, has awarded the above said amount and, therefore, there is no error in the impugned award. 7. It is the contention of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants that the deceased 'Patha Mahesh' aged about 29 years, was a businessman in cloth, being the proprietor of nandini Dresses & Jeans Corner, Jagtial. He used to run the business of clothes near Venugopala Swamy Temple at Jagtial. 8. Respondent No.3 - Patha Sudhakar is the father of the deceased and owner of TVS Victor Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 15Q 4675. On the instructions of his father, the deceased was proceeding on the said two-wheeler on 04.06.2004 from Jagtial along with PW.2 as pillion rider, to go to Buggaram village, native place of the deceased and respondent No.1. On deceased reaching the outskirts of Polasa village, all of a sudden, a he buffalo came across by running and it was crossing the road. The said event had occurred in a spur of moment and as such the deceased could not control the vehicle, dashed against he buffalo. Due to the same, the deceased fell down and received injuries on his head. The pillion rider with the help of others, shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital in a Jeep and on the way, the deceased died. Due to the same, the deceased fell down and received injuries on his head. The pillion rider with the help of others, shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital in a Jeep and on the way, the deceased died. The police registered a case vide Ex.A1 - FIR, and on completion of investigation, filed Ex.A5 final report. 9. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants, the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of the accident and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing the cloth business. According to them, the deceased had also bright prospects of developing his business and would have generated good income. Due to untimely death of the deceased, his wife carrying pregnancy, had committed suicide on 16.06.2004. Respondent No.1 - claimant No.1 is the mother of the deceased and respondent No.2 - claimant No.2 is the minor son of the deceased. 10. With the said contentions, respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants sought an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards compensation. 11. Respondent No.3, owner of the vehicle and father of the deceased, filed counter before the Tribunal admitting that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and that the same was insured with the appellant. He has also further admitted that the deceased was coming from Jagtial to Buggaram on the said vehicle on his instructions and met with an accident. 12. The appellant - Insurer filed its counter with the contentions mentioned supra, more particularly, the accident was due to negligence of the deceased himself. 13. On consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs towards compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants as against their claim of Rs. 8.00 lakhs. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself and the deceased being the son of the insured stepped into the shoes of respondent No.3 - insured and, therefore, the deceased is not a third party. In the said circumstances, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation under the provisions of the Act. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. In the said circumstances, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation under the provisions of the Act. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The search made in the appellant's office to locate as to whether the vehicle was insured with it, but it became futile exercise. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claim filed by the claimants is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and that the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer relied on the principle held by the Apex Court in Ningamma v. United Indian Insurance Company Limited, 2009 13 SCC 710 . In the said case, the Apex Court considered the liability of the insurance company in a case where the driver is a representative of the owner, he was driving under the owner's instructions or permission and is thus owner qua insurance company and not a third party. The Apex Court by referring the principle held by it in several other cases, more particularly, the principle in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi, 2009 2 SCC 417 wherein son of the owner was driving the vehicle, died in the accident, was not a third party. In the said case, it was held that neither 163-A, nor 166 would be applicable. The Apex Court held that the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 16. In the case on hand, the deceased, son of the owner of the vehicle, on the instructions of his father while proceeding on the said vehicle, when he reached the outskirts of Polasa village, all of a sudden, a he buffalo came across by running and it was crossing the road, the said event had occurred in a spur of moment and as such, the deceased could not control the vehicle and dashed against the he buffalo. As a result, he fell down and received fatal injuries on his head and thereafter he died. There is no vehicle involved in the accident except the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling. As a result, he fell down and received fatal injuries on his head and thereafter he died. There is no vehicle involved in the accident except the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling. Applying the principle held by the Apex Court in Sadanand Mukhi, 2009 2 SCC 417 the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation since deceased is not a third party as per the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award and decree dated 19.06.2006 in O.P. No.27 of 2005 passed by the Tribunal are set aside in so far as the appellant - Insurer is concerned. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.