B. Chandra Kumar, J.

1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Award dated 17.03.2006 passed in O.P. No. 200 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Nampally, at Hyderabad, is under challenge in these appeals. The claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation in their appeal M.A.C.M.A. No. 1544 of 2006 and the insurance company is challenging its liability in its appeal M.A.C.M.A. No. 1614 of 2006.

2. Parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The claimants are parents of the deceased Upender @ Uppalaiah. On 19.10.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased and his friend Mysaiah were proceeding on scooter bearing No. AP 28 F 1889. The deceased was driving the scooter. A lorry bearing No. ADF 9329 was parked in middle of the road without parking lights and signals and without keeping any stones. The deceased could not observe the said lorry and dashed back portion of the lorry and consequently the deceased sustained head injuries and died on the spot. Police, on the complaint of the driver of the lorry, registered a case in Crime No. 115 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 337 and 304A IPC. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as a labourer and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and claimed a total compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakhs.

4. Owner of the lorry, first respondent, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent insurance company contested the matter on various grounds.

5. The main contention of the insurance company is that since the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

6. On behalf of the claimants P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, but copy of policy was marked as Ex. B-1.

7. On appreciation of evidence, on issue No. 1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the claimants are claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), they need not plead and prove the issue of negligence. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 10,000/- per annum and by applying 16 multiplier awarded compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards loss of earnings and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- for transportation and funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection in all Rs. 1,90,000/-.

8. Smt. I. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the insurance company in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1644 of 2006, submits that the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha, 2012 (2) SCJ 227: (2012) 2 SCC 356 held that it is open to the owner or the insurer, as the case may be, to defeat a claim raised under Section 163-A of the Act by pleading and establishing through cogent evidence and fault grounds. It is also her submission that basing on the above referred judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyderabad vs. Gaddam Swami Reddy, 2013 (4) ALT 574: 2013 (2) An.W.R. 158 (AP): 2013 (3) ALD 66 held that petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable which is founded as fault liability principle. It is also her contention that the contents of F.I.R can be relied on when the said document is filed by the claimants themselves and the contents of F.I.R. go to show that the deceased died due to his own negligence.

9. In the appeal, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1544 of 2006, filed by the claimants, Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel, representing the same insurance company submitted that when a claim is made under Section 163-A of the Act,