Aggrieved by the Award dated 23.03.2005 in OP No.400 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short the Tribunal), the 2nd respondent in the OP/ New India Assurance Company Limited preferred the instant appeal.

2) The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The first claimant is the wife and the second claimant is the daughter of the deceased Venkat Reddy. Their case is that on 09.03.2002 at about 11:00 PM, when the deceased was going on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP 28AA 6268 to arrange labourers along with one mason by name M.Narayana and when they reached near tank bund on Bhongir to Yadagirigutta, the breaks of his motorcycle failed and deceased could not control his vehicle and fell into a ditch. Due to which the deceased sustained injuries and died after admitting him in the hospital. On these pleas, the claimants filed OP No.400 of 2002 against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the motorcycle and claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the OP.

b) Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

c) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company opposed the claim denying all the material claim averments and urged to put the claimants in strict proof of the same. R2 further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. R2 contended that accident was occurred due to the fault of the rider of motorcycle and prayed to dismiss the OP.

d) During trial, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondents.

e) Award would show that the Tribunal having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, has granted Rs.1 lakh as compensation with interest @ 8% per annum.

Hence, the appeal by the New India Assurance Company Limited.

3) The parties in the appeal are referred as they stood before the Tribunal.

4) Heard arguments of Sri P.Harinath Gupta, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company. No representation for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No.3/owner of the motorcycle though served notice failed to appear. However, since he remained ex parte before the Tribunal and suffered decree, his absence in this appeal will not have any effect in view of the decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others.

5 a) Challenging the award learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company would argue that the accident was occurred due to fault of the deceased himself, as he drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and unable to control it, went and fell in a ditch and as such, though claim is under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act (for short MV Act) i.e. under no fault liability principle, still the Insurance Company is not liable for the claim as the accident was occurred due to his own fault. Learned counsel thus at first instance disowned the liability of the Insurance Company.

b) Secondly, he argued that rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability, if not, reduce the rate of interest suitably.

6) In the light of above arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is:

Whether the decision of the Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company is correct?

7) POINT: As can be seen from para-5 of the award the Tribunal having considered the fact that claim is under Section 163-A of MV Act and as per Section 163-A rash and negligent driving by the concerned driver is not material and it is sufficient to prove that accident had taken place when the vehicle was being used on the road, has ultimately held that the deceased in the instant case died in due course of using the motorcycle and as the policy was in force, the Insurance Company was liable for the claim. It is now to be seen whether above finding is correct or not.

8) It is a claim under Section 163-A of MV Act. Section 163-A of MV Act reads thus:

163A. S