Sabhahit, J.

This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the Judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore SCCH-7 in MVC No. 2943/2005 dated 18/0512006 wherein the application filed by the respondents under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been allowed in part and compensation of Rs.3,81 ,000/- has been awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment.

2. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the structure formula and the schedule read with the provisions of Sections 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the application filed by the respondents seeking compensation towards the death of the driver of the car who was himself negligent in driving the car, is not maintainable and wherefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as not maintainable.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, is maintainable as it is inserted into the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as an exception to award compensation under Section l63A based upon structure formula and mere fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the victim himself cannot be a defence in the application filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the petition cannot be said to be not maintainable merely on the ground that accident occurred due to the negligence of the victim.

5. In the present case, on 06/05/2004 at about 1.30 a.m., Rahiman @ Ibrahim who was driving Toyota Quallis bearing registration NO.KA 19 A 4699 from Ankola to Yellapura and the vehicle suddenly went off the road and fell into the road side drainage due to which the driver sustained multiple injuries and later succumbed to the injuries and died. The claimants are the wife and children of Rahiman @ Ibrahim.

6. IA.III/07 is filed for impleading the applicant alleging that applicant NO.1 is the second wife of the deceased and other applicants are children.

7. Having regard to the contentions urged, the only point that arises for determination is as to:

Whether the petition under Section 163A’ of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal when the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the victim?

8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Appaji (Since Deceased) and Anr. Vs. M. Krishna and Anr. wherein it is held that Section 163A provides awarding compensation on structure formula and if death is caused due to the negligence of the victim himself, the petition is not maintainable. In subsequent judgment of Hon’,ble Supreme Court in case of Deepal Girishabhai sons and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2 the 3 judge bench of the supreme court has held in para 66 of the Judgment as follows:

“We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for example, ‘under the provision of the Act’, or ‘any other law or otherwise’. In section 163-A, the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in this ‘Act or in any other law for the time being in force” has been used, which goes to show that Parliament intended to insert a non obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of section 163-A would apply despite the contrary