Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not entitle a person responsible for an accident to claim compensation on a 'no fault basis'.

( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous first appeal is directed against a judgment and award made by Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, whereby M. V. C. No. 936 of 1997 has been allowed in part and a sum of rs. 50,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum awarded as compensation for the death of late Arun Kumar in a road accident.

( 2 ) THE deceased Arun Kumar was on 8. 7. 1997 riding a scooter on his way from maddur to Malavalli. When he reached a place near the Sugarcane Mill owned by one Malleshanna situated on the said road, he met with an accident resulting in his death. A claim petition in M. V. C. No. 936 of 1997 was presented by the parents of the deceased for payment of compensation. According to the averments made in the said claim petition, the deceased was engaged as a driver by respondent No. 1, the owner of the scooter involved in the accident and the accident in question had taken place while the deceased was trying to avoid a cyclist who had suddenly emerged on the road. The claim petition specifically stated that claimants were exercising their right of filing a claim before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal instead of one under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and that the claim was in terms of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 'no fault basis' only. Objections filed on behalf of the owner of the scooter involved in the accident, inter alia, stated that the deceased had been engaged by respondent owner and that he was going to Malavalli in connection with the work assigned to him. The allegation that accident had taken place because the deceased was trying to avoid hitting the cyclist was denied. It was on the contrary alleged that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased himself. The deceased was according to the respondent owner of the scooter, working as a helper and driver with him on payment of Rs. 2,500 per month towards salary.

( 3 ) THE insurance company denied the allegations made in the claim petition and, inter alia, stated that the policy of insurance issued for the scooter involved in the accident was an Act policy which did not cover the risk of a driver. The allegation that the deceased was an employee of the owner and that the accident had occurred during the course of the alleged employment was also denied. It was stated that the deceased was in the employment of a private company unconnected with the respondent owner and that the accident had taken while the deceased was on private work riding the scooter borrowed from the owner.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings the Tribunal framed three issues for determination which have been answered against the claimant in terms of the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal held that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased which fact was proved even in the course of the police investigation. It relied upon the first information report lodged by the cyclist hit by the deceased and declared that deceased was driving the two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the cyclist causing injuries to him, apart from sustaining some injuries on his body which resulted in his death. Insofar as the question of liability was concerned, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000 only towards compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles act on 'no fault basis'. Their claim for payment of any further amount in terms of section 163-A was negatived and the claim petition disposed of accordingly. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the above findings and the award made on the basis thereof.

( 5 ) MR. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant No. 1, the father of the deceased had during the pendency of the appeal passed away on 20. 9. 2001 leaving behind appellant No. 2 a