B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

The unsuccessful claimants/appellants, by name Sri Kuppala Shankaraiah Goud and Kuppala Yadamma, who are no other than parents of deceased Mahesh Goud, filed O.P. No. 354 of 2007 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') on the file of the Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar (for short, 'Tribunal'), against the owner and Insurer of lorry bearing No. AP-16T-6688 for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of Mahesh Goud in the motor accident, which took place on 27.01.2007.

2. The averments in the claim petition are that on 27.01.2007 at about 3:30 p.m., the deceased Mahesh Goud and Gopal Goud were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-21K-5552 from Divitpally to Malleboinpally Village and when they reached Chitteboinpally Village on National Highway No.7 in front of Bridge School near Culvert No. 87/1, the rider of the said motor cycle, by name, Gopal Goud, overtook said lorry and on seeing an auto trolley coming in opposite direction, turned the bike towards left side of the road and in the meanwhile the said lorry driven by its driver came behind their motor cycle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to it and as a result of which, five persons travelling on the motor bike fell down and sustained severe injuries and Gopal Goud and Naresh Reddy died on the spot and Mahesh Goud died on the way to hospital, whereas Yadgiri Reddy and Naresh Goud received bleeding injuries and underwent treatment in Government hospital and other hospitals. A case in Crime No.38 of 2007 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC was registered on the life of Jadcherla Police Station and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the said lorry.

3. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.2, insurer, filed counter and opposed the claim by raising several pleas. He disputed the manner of accident and the involvement of the lorry in that accident by rash and negligent driving by its driver, which was the outcome of five persons proceeding on the vehicle unable to control themselves and there is no fault of the lorry driver and non-impleadment of the bike owner is fatal and among other general conditions, there is no coverage of risk by the policy holder, he sought to dismiss the claim. He further disputed that the very report in registering the crime is showing fault of the persons proceeding on the bike.

5. The Tribunal, basing on the pleadings, framed three issues.

6. During the enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1, policy, was marked.

7. The Tribunal, appreciating the evidence on record, and opining that the deceased, in fact, was driving the motor cycle and while attempting to control an auto which was coming in opposite direction, dashed the lorry, held that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and dismissed the claim.

8. Before discussing further facts, it is necessary to state the scope of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 59 of 1988, amended by Act, 54 of 1994 and further amended by Act, 39 of 2001. It is needless to say, the Chapters 10 to 12 are not only inter-related but also interlinked. Section 140 is incorporated in Chapter X, Section 163A is incorporated in Chapter XI and Section 166 is incorporated in Chapter XII are with different wording. The wording of Section 140(3) is with self same wording of Section 163A(2), however, there is no similar wording of Section 140(4) in Section 163A to take away the defence right specifically like in Section 140(4). It is to say, in a claim filed under Section 140 or 163A, the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish the death or permanent disablement relating to the claim were due to wrongful act, neglect or default of owner or owners of the vehi