( 1 ) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-1995 in M V C No. 3086/92 on the file of the M A C T X Bangalore rejecting their petition filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ).

( 2 ) ). The appellants are the widow and children of the deceased G. Narasimha Murthy, who died on 3-6-1992 due to the injuries he suffered in a scooter accident. According to the appellants the deceased-Krishnamurthy was driving the scooter on 2-6-1992 at about 12-20 noon through M E S Road and at that time a monkey suddenly crossed the road and in order to avoid hitting the monkey, he applied sudden brake and losing control of the vehicle he fell down and sustained serious injuries resulting in his death on the next day at NIMHANS Bangalore. That the deceased drove the scooter on the instructions of its owner the I-respondent, who entrusted him with some work. That the scooter was insured with the II-Respondent-Insurance Company. The appellants claimed a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the no-fault liability provision, Section 140 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE first respondent owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and only the second respondent-Insurance Company filed objections and contested the petition mainly on the ground that the deceased suffered fatal injuries due to his own negligence and Section 140 does not apply to such a situation and the petition was, therefore, not maintainable. The M A C T after hearing the parties, has dismissed the petition on the ground that the deceased died due to his own fault and under such circumstances the petitioners who are the LRs of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation under no fault liability basis.

( 4 ) SRI A. K. Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Claims Tribunal was wrong in dismissing the petition filed by the claimants under Section 140 of the Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel relying upon Sections 140 to 144, 165 and 168 of the Act and also certain reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts that when there is no dispute that the deceased in this case died due to the accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the appellants as the legal representatives of the deceased is entitled to the fixed amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the no-fault liability, Section 140 of the Act and it is not necessary for the claimants to prove negligence on the part of any other person. On the other hand Sri P. B. Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company countering the arguments of the appellant submitted that the principles of law of tort is that no man can take advantage of his own wrong and the deceased who himself was negligent in driving the vehicle which resulted in the fatal accident is not entitled to claim even under Section 140 of the Act. It is contended that when the deceased himself was the driver and no other vehicle is involved, the claim petition under Section 140 of the Act is not even maintainable.

( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal has quoted the head- note purported to be taken from the decision reported in 1990 ACJ 373 to hold that the claimant who is solely responsible for the accident cannot claim compensation on no-fault liability basis. I have gone through the said decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. No- where I find that the Kerala High Court has held that the claimant, who himself is negligent cannot maintain a claim petition. On the other hand, the Kerala High Court has held even when a regular claim petition under Section 110-A of 1939 Act is rejected, compensation under no- fault liability could be awarded without a formal application for the same by the claimants. In M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Tarabai, ILR 1995 Kant 2364 : (1996 AIHC 3002) this Court has held repelling the contention raised by the Insurance Company to the effect that an award cannot be made under