S. SUJATHA, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the Judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, [the 'Tribunal', for short] in MVC No. 210/2012.

2. Briefly stated the facts are:

That the claimants, parents of the deceased Mahendra instituted the petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of their son in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 8.2.2012 at about 10.10 p.m. while the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-45/J-4984, alleging actionable negligence of the driver of lorry bearing registration No. KA-19/B-9840 (offending vehicle) for parking on the main rood in a negligent manner without any sign or indicator. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the registered owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and the appellant, insurer of the offending vehicle entered appearance and resisted the claim. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,36,500/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer. Being aggrieved, the appellant-insurer is in appeal challenging the liability.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned Judgment and award would vehemently contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in entertaining the claim under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('Act' for short), ignoring the negligence on the part of the deceased. The accident occurred due to the own negligence of the deceased, dashing against the hind side of the parked vehicle (offending vehicle). The charge sheet was filed by the police authorities against the drivers of both the vehicles, as such, contributory negligence apparent on the face of the record could have been properly appreciated by the Tribunal in fastening the liability. It is submitted that no tort-feasor can file the claim for compensation for self negligence. Section 163-A cannot be departed from the said principle. Learned counsel placing reliance on the Judgment in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited And Others' reported in 2015 ACJ 1441, would contend that the subtle difference between the contributory negligence and composite negligence was not considered by the Tribunal in the right perspective. The case on hand was of contributory negligence in much as the negligence contributed by the deceased for causing the accident to the parked vehicle. The Tribunal misdirected itself in proceeding that the cause of the accident was composite negligence. Thus, it is emphasized that the factum of contributory negligence, if apportioned, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of contributory negligence of the deceased deserves to be reduced. Yet another argument advanced was that the owner/insurer of the other vehicle, motorcycle bearing No. KA-45/J-4984 not being impleaded, no entire liability could be saddled on the appellant-insurer.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifying the impugned Judgment and award would contend that the Tribunal after extensively analysing the evidence on record, awarded the just compensation fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer which do not warrant any interference by this Court. It was contended that Section 163-A of the Act being a special provision based on 'no fault liability' and more particularly, two vehicles being involved in the accident, no negligence requires to be proved by the claimants. It was contended that non-impleadment of the owner/insurer of the motorcycle would not obliterate the right of the claimants to make a claim under Section 163-A of the Act.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

(i) whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award in th