JUDGMENT : These appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') are arising out of common judgment and award dated 03.03.2011 in MVC.490/2010 and 491/2010. 2. MFA.No.6788/2011 is filed by petitioners in MVC.No.491/2010. MFA.No.6789/2011 is filed by petitioners in MVC.No.490/2010. 3. MFA.No.8300/2011 and 8301/2011 are filed by respondent No.2 - Insurance company against the judgment and award in MVC.No.490/2010 and 491/2010 respectively. 4. Since these appeals are arising out of common judgment and award, they are clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment. 5. Since in both these petitions the respondents are common, for the sake of convenience they are referred to as respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since in the accident in question, two deaths have occurred giving rise to two separate claim petitions claiming compensation by their respective legal representatives, for the sake of convenience petitioners in MVC.No.490/2010 are referred to as LRs of Krishnamurthy Reddy and petitioners in MVC.No.491/21010 are referred to as LRs of Reddappa Reddy. 6. FACTS: Brief facts leading to the filing of claim petitions are that on 02.08.2009 at about 8.15 p.m. deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. He was proceeding from Chittoor to Chigurakolapalli. When he was infront of Anand Processing and Food Juice factory, rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-P-2831 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) i.e, deceased Redappa Reddy, came form the opposite direction in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy. As a result of the accident, both Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa Reddy sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 7. During the course of petition averments, LRs of Redappa Reddy have pleaded that at the time of accident, both Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa Reddy rode the offending vehicle in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of each other. As a result of the accident, both riders died on the spot. 8. LRs of both deceased have pleaded that deceased were earning Rs.40,000/-p.a. Under Section 163-A of the MV Act, they are seeking compensation under no fault liability against the respondents i.e., the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 9. As a result of the accident, both riders died on the spot. 8. LRs of both deceased have pleaded that deceased were earning Rs.40,000/-p.a. Under Section 163-A of the MV Act, they are seeking compensation under no fault liability against the respondents i.e., the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 9. In his written statement, respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle has admitted the ownership and coverage of the offending vehicle, date, time, place of accident and the death of both riders in the said accident. He has pleaded that charge sheet is filed against the riders of the both motor cycles and as the both riders died, the charge sheet is abated. However, he has denied that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending vehicle. In MVC.No.491/2010, respondent No.1 has specifically pleaded that petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act is not maintainable against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle by the LRs of deceased Redappa Reddy as he was not a third party. In the event of allowing the petitions, respondent No.1 has pleaded that respondent No.2 -Insurance company is liable to indemnify him. 10. In the written statement, respondent No.2 has denied the accident, relationship between the deceased and the petitioners, death of deceased in the said accident. Though respondent No.2 admit the coverage of the offending vehicle, it has taken up a specific defence that deceased Redappa Reddy who was riding the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license and as such respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the owner. Respondent No.2 has also pleaded that petition in MVC.No.491/2010 is not maintainable for not impleading the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. 11. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues. 12. In MVC.No.491/2010, petitioner No.1 therein is examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to 10 are marked. In MVC.No.490/2010 petitioner No.1 therein is examined as PW-2 and Ex.P1 to 16 are marked. 13. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.2, RW-1 is examined by way of common evidence and Ex.R1 -copy of the insurance policy is marked. 14. Vide impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has answered all the issues in favour of petitioners and granted global compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-each in both cases. 15. 13. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.2, RW-1 is examined by way of common evidence and Ex.R1 -copy of the insurance policy is marked. 14. Vide impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has answered all the issues in favour of petitioners and granted global compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-each in both cases. 15. During the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioners submitted that instead of granting compensation under the structured formula, the Tribunal has erred in granting global compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-and has sought for enhancement of the same. 16. The learned counsel for petitioners have relied upon the following decisions: i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar and another, AIR 2017 SC 5710 (Sunil's Case) ii) Shivaji and another Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, Civil Appeal No.2816 of 2018 disposed on 09.08.2018 (Shivaji's Case) iii) Smt. Jancy Vs. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Mangalore, ILR 2021 KAR 2347 (Jancy's Case) iv) Smt. Priya W/o. Late Shivakumar and others Vs. Sri Armugam and another, MFA No.3889/2011 Disposed on 11.06.2019 (Priya's Case) v) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gousia and others, 2019 ACJ 1649 (Gousia's Case) vi) Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2020) 7 SCC 386 (Tiwari's Case) vii) Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 (Ramkhiladi's Case) viii) National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt. Anjali and others, ILR 2011 KAR 5184 (Anjali's Case) ix) IFFCO-TOKIO GIC Ltd., Vs. Smt. Susheela & others, ILR 2021 KAR 447 (Susheela's Case) 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that when two vehicles are involved, in a petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the owner and insurer of the both vehicles are necessary parties, but in the present case, the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037, which was ridden by deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy, is not arraigned as parties. Though in a petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the negligence on the part of the rider is not required to be proved, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not taken away by the said provision in quantifying the negligence and involvement of the other vehicle. Though in a petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the negligence on the part of the rider is not required to be proved, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not taken away by the said provision in quantifying the negligence and involvement of the other vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037, the Tribunal is not justified in directing respondent No.2 to pay the compensation in both cases. 18. In support of the defence of respondent No.2, the learned counsel has also relied upon Ramkhiladi’s Case. 19. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 20. Thus, LRs of both deceased viz., Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa Reddy have maintained these two separate claim petitions under Section 163-A of the MV Act, which is otherwise called as no fault liability. Even though in MVC.No.490/2010, the petitioners have pleaded that the accident occurred only due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending vehicle, after conducting detailed investigation, the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet against both deceased i.e., the rider of the offending vehicle as well as the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037 i.e., deceased Krishna Murthy Reddy and thereby it is established that both riders/deceased were rash or negligent and responsible for causing accident. However, the petitioners in MVC No.491/2010, who are LRs of Redappa Reddy have pleaded that both deceased i.e., Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa Reddy were equally negligent in causing the accident. 21. It is pertinent to note that so far as the offending vehicle is concerned, deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy and his LRs are third parties. However, the deceased Redappa Reddy and his LRs are not third party so far as the offending vehicle and respondents are concerned. The LRs of Redappa Reddy have not chosen to arraign the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. Under no fault liability, it was necessary on their part to implead the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. 22. Thus, so far as petition in MVC.No.490/2010 is concerned, deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy was a third party vis-à-vis respondents and as such petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act is maintainable. However, for reasons best known to them, petitioners in MVC.No.491/2010 have not chosen to arraigned the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. 22. Thus, so far as petition in MVC.No.490/2010 is concerned, deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy was a third party vis-à-vis respondents and as such petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act is maintainable. However, for reasons best known to them, petitioners in MVC.No.491/2010 have not chosen to arraigned the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. Had they impleaded the owner and insurer of the said vehicle, they would have been third parties with respect to the said vehicle and in that event petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act would have been perfectly maintainable against them. It appears the motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037 was not covered by a valid insurance and therefore the LRs of the Redappa Reddy i.e., the petitioners in MVC.No.491/2010 have not chosen to arraigned the owner and insurer of the said vehicle. 23. Now coming to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel representing the petitioners in MVC No.491/2010. i) In Sunil Kumar’s case, it was held that in a petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, it is not open to the insurer to raise defence of negligence on the part of the victim. However from the said judgment one is not able to know whether it was a claim by third party or not. Therefore the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in MVC No.491/2010 wherein petitioners are not third party. ii) So far as Shivaji’s case is concerned, it was a matter where the petition was filed by the legal representatives of driver of the car against the offending vehicle which is lorry and therefore, it was held that a petition under section 163-A of M.V.Act is maintainable and it was not open to the owner and insurer of the lorry to plead negligence on the part of the deceased who was the driver of the car. This decision is not applicable to MVC No.491/2010 wherein the claim is against the owner and insurer of the vehicle which the deceased was riding and as such, he was not the third party. iii) In Jancy’s case, petitioners were legal representatives of rider of the two wheeler and the claim was against the offending vehicle belonging to KSRTC and a such, it was a third party claim. It is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of MVC No.491/2010. iii) In Jancy’s case, petitioners were legal representatives of rider of the two wheeler and the claim was against the offending vehicle belonging to KSRTC and a such, it was a third party claim. It is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of MVC No.491/2010. iv) In Priya’s case, claimants were the legal representatives of rider of the motorcycle which skid and suffered injuries and died. Since deceased and his legal representatives are not third parties, in view of Ramkiladi’s case, this decision cannot be applied to MVC No.491/2010. v) In Netravati’s case deceased was rider of a motorcycle and when suddenly a dog crossed a road, he fell and sustained injuries and died. His legal representatives claimed compensation under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. In view of Ramkiladi’s case, this decision cannot be applied to MVC No.491/2010. vi) In Gousia’s case deceased was borrower of the vehicle. He lost control over the vehicle and hit curb stone on the road side and died. Since he is not a third party, in view of Ramkiladi’s case, this decision cannot be applied to MVC No.491/2010. vii) Rama Bommayya Naika’s case deals with converting an petition filed under Section 166 to 163 of M.V. Act. The same is not applicable to MVC No.491/2010. viii) Chandrakant Tivari’s case deals with a claim by the legal representatives of the pillion rider of the offending vehicle who was necessarily a third party and as such it was held that petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is maintainable. However, the deceased Reddappa Reddy was rider of the offending vehicle and as such not a third party. Therefore this decision is not applicable to MVC No.491/2010. 24. At this stage, by way of alternative argument, the learned counsel for petitioners in MVC No.491/2010 argued and submitted that, even where the Court comes to the conclusion that, petition under section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable against respondent No.2, since respondent No.2 Insurance Company has collected additional premium covering the P/A risk of the owner/driver to the limit of Rs.1,00,000/-, to that extent of respondent No.2 may be directed to pay the compensation. 25. It is pertinent to note that the insurance policy with respect of the offending vehicle is produced and marked as Ex.R1. Since it is not legible, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners have produced a legible copy. 25. It is pertinent to note that the insurance policy with respect of the offending vehicle is produced and marked as Ex.R1. Since it is not legible, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners have produced a legible copy. As per Ex.R1 in addition to covering the risk of third party liability, respondent No.2 Insurance Company has collected additional premium of Rs.50/-covering the personal accident of owner/driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, if not as third party liability, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner i.e. respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-under the terms of the contract. In fact, in Ramkhiladi’s case, though the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed under section 163-A, based on the contract of insurance covering the personal accident claim, it directed the insurance Company to pay compensation of sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest under the terms of contract. Similarly in the present case, respondent No.2 is required to pay Rs.1,00,000/-with interest. 26. Respondent No.2 has taken up a specific contention that at the time of accident, deceased Redappa Reddy who was riding the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license and as such respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the owner. During her cross-examination PW-1, who is the wife of Redappa Reddy has admitted that at the time of accident, her husband Redappa Reddy was not holding a driving license to drive the motor cycle. She has also admitted that her husband should not have rode the motor cycle without driving license. In the light of the admission given by PW-1 and in the absence of any evidence placed on record to show that in fact Redappa Reddy was possessing a driving license to drive the offending vehicle and that the admission given by PW-1 is in the ignorance of such document, respondent No.2 has proved that at the time of accident, Redappa Reddy was not holding a valid driving license and since respondent No.1 has entrusted his vehicle to Redappa Reddy who was not possessing a valid driving license, respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the petitioners in MVC.No.490/2010, wherein the claim against respondent No.2 under Section 163-A of the MV Act is maintainable. However in the light of the decisions in Anjali's case and Susheela's case referred to supra, even in a petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, in case of violation of condition regarding the driving license, Insurance company may be directed to indemnify the owner and recover the same from him. So far as MVC.No.490/2010 is concerned, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to pay and recover the compensation. 27. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation which the petitioners are entitled in MVC.No.490/2010. Petitioners have pleaded that at the time of the accident deceased was aged 35 years. In the PM report also his age is noted as 35 years and therefore, his age is required to be taken as 35 years. Petitioners have pleaded that he was earning Rs.40,000/-per annum which the maximum specified in Schedule-II of the M.V. Act. It comes to Rs.3,333/-per month which is also below the minimum wages for the year 2009 when the accident took place. Therefore, even in the absence of evidence, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.40,000/-per annum. As per Schedule II of M.V. Act, for the age group between 30 to 35 and income of Rs.40,000/-per annum the compensation prescribed is Rs.6,40,000/-. As per this schedule, 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and remaining 2/3rd is to taken into consideration for calculating the compensation to the legal representatives i.e. Rs.6,40,000 x 2/3 = 4,26,666/-. 27.1. As per the Schedule petitioners are entitled for a fix amount of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/-towards loss of spousal consortium and Rs.2,500/-towards loss of estate. 27.2. Thus, is all the petitioners are entitled to the compensation for a sum of Rs.4,36,166/-and the same is rounded off to Rs.4,37,000/-. 28. As discussed at para 24 and 25, the petition under section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable against the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, petitioners in MVC No.491/2010 are not entitled for any compensation under section 163-A of M.V. Act. However, in the light of Ex.R1, as per the terms of the contract of insurance between respondent No.1 and 2, respondent No.2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-covering the personal accident claim of the owner/driver, as the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner in his capacity as the borrower of the offending vehicle. However, in the light of Ex.R1, as per the terms of the contract of insurance between respondent No.1 and 2, respondent No.2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-covering the personal accident claim of the owner/driver, as the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner in his capacity as the borrower of the offending vehicle. 29. To this extent, the impugned orders are liable to be modified and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA No.6788/2011, 6789/2011, 8300/2011 and 8301/2011 are allowed in part. ii) Petitioners in MVC No.490/2010 are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,37,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation together with interest and recover the same from respondent No.1. iv) Petitioners in MVC No.491/2010 are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. v) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation together with interest. vi) Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit, if any, to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. vii) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.