JUDGMENT : M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 31.03.2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Jayashankar – Bhupalpally (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1096 of 2016, the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned award. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under: a) The petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the death of her son by name ‘Gavuru Ranjith Reddy’ (hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased’). The reason assigned by the petitioner for the death of the deceased is that on 06.08.2016 at 5.30 PM while the deceased along with respondent No.1 were moving on a Tractor bearing No. TS 03 EA 5990 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘crime vehicle’), the wheels of the crime vehicle got stuck in the mud; when the deceased got down the vehicle, tried to remove the wheels from the mud, due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.1, the crime vehicle turned turtle and fell over the deceased, who sustained fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment. b) A case in Crime No.176/2016 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1 and subsequently after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. c) The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and at the time of death, he was aged about 22 years, hale and healthy. The deceased used to contribute his salary to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively, for the death of the deceased. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counters. They denied the manner of the accident, age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased. It is further contended that respondent No.2 is the father of the deceased, as such, deceased cannot be treated as a third party. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counters. They denied the manner of the accident, age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased. It is further contended that respondent No.2 is the father of the deceased, as such, deceased cannot be treated as a third party. As per the version of respondent No.3, if there is any compensation payable, it is only respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable. Therefore, on the above grounds the respondents assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the case. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the death of the deceased was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount, if so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined apart from exhibiting Ex. B1. 7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioner/claimant and making respondent Nos.1 to 3 liable to pay the compensation of Rs.14,37,800/- jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company/Respondent No.3 as well as Sri Ch. Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent/ claimant and perused the entire material available on record including the grounds of Appeal. 9. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of eyewitness (PW2) coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2 (charge sheet), A3 (inquest report) and A4 (PME report) answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No. TS 03 EA 5990 and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. There is no dispute that the insurance policy (Ex.B1) was subsisting as on the date of accident. There is also no dispute with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner. 10. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased being son of respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle becomes owner of the offending vehicle by stepping into the shoes of the owner and he cannot be considered as third party for the payment of compensation and this appellant is not liable to be pay compensation under Motor Vehicle Act. 11. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has relied upon the following decisions: a) In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417 the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under: “Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the quantum of the premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an `act policy', the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If the contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act become otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. It is one thing to say that the life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act. It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational.” b) In Jayavarapu Rajamma and others v. Jayavarapu Laxminarayana and others, 2007 (6) ALD 306 the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh observed that the kith and kin of the insured for injuries and their legal representatives in the event of their death in the accident can sustain claims for compensation as third party claims, provided the relevant policy of insurance covers such a risk. It was further observed that the owner of the vehicle/insured driving or traveling in the vehicle in case of injuries r his legal representatives in case of his death in the accident can make a claim only if the policy by its terms covers such risk. c) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jhuma Saha and others, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1054 the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the liability of the insurer-company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or a injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the question of insurer being liable to indemnify insured, therefore, does not arise. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant relied upon a decision of this Court in Thakur Uma Rani v. Thakur Giridhar Singh, 2019 SCC Online TS 1385 it was observed as under: “12. In Sadanand Mukhi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation in relation to the accident occurred by use of the vehicle which was being driven by the son of the insured, held that the insurance company is not liable. But, the facts in the present case are different. In Jayavarapu Rajamma's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that kith and kin of insured and their legal representatives in the event of their death in accident can sustain claim for compensation as third party claims, provided relevant policy of insurance covers such a risk-existence and extent of liability of insurer governed by specific terms and conditions of policy. It also further held that mere nomenclature of the policy as a comprehensive policy or otherwise is not the guide, but the specific terms and conditions of the policy govern the existence and extent of the liability of the insurer. In the present appeals, the offending vehicles cover by comprehensive/package policies. Though there are no specific terms and conditions in the policies with regard to covering of risk of kith and kin of the deceased, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, as per the ratio laid down in Balakrishnan's case (supra), from which it can be construed that when the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, the insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two wheeler or the occupants in private car.” 13. It is to be seen that the decision in Thakur Uma Rani’s case (supra) was based on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and another, 2012 AIR SCW 6286 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court arrived to the conclusion that the “comprehensive/ package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car and pillion rider of a two wheeler by relying upon the circulars issued by the IRDA. However, it is evident from the record that in the instant case the crime vehicle is a tractor and moreover, the deceased is not an occupant of the vehicle at the time of accident. The deceased was not even a paid driver or paid cleaner. If at all there was any relationship between the deceased and respondent No.2 to that of an employee and employer, the dispute will be covered under Workmen Compensation Act but not under Motor Vehicle Act. 14. In Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company v. Sangam Vanaja,  2019 (9) LAWS (TLNG) 127 this Court observed that the liability of the insurance company in a third-party insurance policy is limited to indemnifying the insured (policyholder) against claims made by third parties for bodily injury, death, or property damage caused due to the use of the insured vehicle. The insured or their legal representatives cannot claim compensation from their own insurer for their own negligence unless the policy explicitly provides for such coverage. 15. The insured or their legal representatives cannot claim compensation from their own insurer for their own negligence unless the policy explicitly provides for such coverage. 15. A third-party policy is mandatory under the Act and covers liability arising from injury or death of third parties or damage to third-party property. The policyholder, their family members, or occupants of the vehicle (unless paid passengers in a commercial vehicle) are not considered third parties under a standard third-party policy. The policyholder (insured) cannot claim compensation from their own insurer for their own negligence under a third-party policy. The insurer’s duty is only to indemnify the insured against claims by third parties, not to compensate the insured for their own injuries. If the insured has opted for a personal accident cover, he/she or his/her legal representatives may be entitled to compensation in case of death or disability. However, PA cover is separate from third-party liability and must be expressly included in the policy. 16. In Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2004) 8 SCC 553 the Honourable Supreme Court clarified that a third-party policy does not cover the owner's own injury or death unless a separate personal accident cover exists. There is no dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1, he is primarily liable for the accident. The deceased herein who is the son of the owner of the vehicle/respondent No.2, is considered to have "stepped into the shoes" of the owner. The deceased cannot be considered a third party for the purpose of third-party insurance claims. Since Respondent No.2 is the father of the deceased and also the owner of the tractor, his liability as an owner arises vicariously for the negligence of Respondent No.1. 17. As can be seen from the record, the respondent No.2, who is alleged to be the father of the deceased, also filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of respondent No.2 being the father of the deceased. It is only in evidence of RW1, the fact of respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) being the father of the deceased was testified. It appears that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of respondent No.2 being the father of the deceased. It is only in evidence of RW1, the fact of respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) being the father of the deceased was testified. The learned Tribunal observed at page No.9 in paragraph No.14 of the impugned Award that the insurance was paid to cover the risk caused due to the crime vehicle, as such, the relation must be traced with the crime vehicle but not with its owner. It was further observed in the impugned Award that an injured or deceased, i.e., person who does not have any relation with the crime vehicle as a passenger or driver or cleaner, but happened to be a relative of the owner or driver of the crime vehicle is not a ground to disentitle him seek the compensation as a third party. 18. A perusal of Ex.B1 discloses that the policy is a package/comprehensive policy. A premium of Rs.3,748/- was paid to cover the damage to the insured vehicle and does not cover personal injury to the owner or his family members. The respondent No.2 has paid premium of Rs.382/- towards third- party liability, which covers liabilities arising due to death/injury of third parties. An amount of Rs.100/- was paid towards ‘PA cover to owner-driver’, which Provides personal accident coverage to the registered owner if he was driving. An amount of Rs.50/- was paid to cover the legal liability to paid driver/conductor/cleaner and it provides coverage to paid employees. The insured has paid an amount of Rs.7,800/- in total to subscribe Ex.B1 Policy. Since the deceased was the son of the owner, he is not a third party and thereby he third-party liability coverage under the policy does not extend to him merely because Ex.B1 is a comprehensive/package policy. The PA cover (Personal Accident Cover) applies only to the owner-driver, not to family members. It is not the case of the petitioner that the owner has paid premium for additional personal accident cover for family members. Thus, the primary liability to pay compensation rests with Respondent No.1 (Driver) and Respondent No.2 (Owner/Father of the Deceased) and whereas the Insurance Company (Respondent No.3) is not liable to compensate the petitioner since the deceased is not a third party under the policy. Thus, the primary liability to pay compensation rests with Respondent No.1 (Driver) and Respondent No.2 (Owner/Father of the Deceased) and whereas the Insurance Company (Respondent No.3) is not liable to compensate the petitioner since the deceased is not a third party under the policy. Had the owner/respondent No.2 had taken an additional personal accident cover for passengers or family members, then they would have entitled for compensation. However, as per Ex.B1, there is no such additional premium paid to coverage such risk. 19. In view of the principle laid down in the above said decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Respondent No.1 (driver) and Respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle/father of the deceased) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and whereas the Insurance Company /Respondent No.3 is not liable and thereby it is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 20. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company/Respondent No.3 that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 9%, which is highly excessive. By considering the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 : 2013 (4) ALT 35, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to7.5% per annum. 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations. 22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part to the extent of reducing the rate of interest on the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from 9% to 7.5%. Further, the respondent No.3 (Appellant) is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation as the respondent No.2 (owner) has not paid any additional premium under Ex.B1 to cover the personal accident to his family members. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner are jointly and severally liable to compensation amount of Rs.14,37,800/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner are jointly and severally liable to compensation amount of Rs.14,37,800/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to her without furnishing any security. The remaining part of the impugned Award stands undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.