G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 07.09.2007 whereby in a Petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act preferred by the Respondents No.1 to 3, a compensation of Rs.4,31,900/- was awarded in their favour.

2. The Appellant’s (Insurance Company’s) grievance is that there were two vehicles involved in the accident i.e. a TSR bearing No.DL-1RE-3360 in which the deceased was travelling and a stationary bus bearing No.DL-1PB-1906 which was owned by Sukhchain Singh (the Respondent No.7) and was insured with the Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It is stated that although there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the TSR driver being solely liable, having rammed the TSR in the stationary bus, the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability on the Appellant. It is further the contention of the Appellant Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal had no power to ask the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance and then decide on the liability. It is urged that in the absence of any evidence, the deceased’s income should have been taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 16 adopted by the Claims Tribunal, argues the learned counsel is also on the higher side.

3. There is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 3 or the owner & the driver of the TSR.

4. It has to be borne in mind that in a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claimants are not required to raise a plea that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim had been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or of the vehicle or the vehicles concerned or of any person. In the circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and thus the Appellant was not liable to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation is without any substance. Moreover, a perusal of the testimony of PW2 SI V.K. Sharma shows that the bus was abandoned on a public way which was not an authorized parking space. There was neither any indicator nor any signal indicating the presence of the bus. He further deposed that the bus was in a drivable condition and there was no problem as to its motorability.

5. Section 163-A enables a Claimant to claim compensation without proving any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and there is no indication in the provision as to from which owner/insurer the Claimants would claim the compensation, if more than one vehicle is involved in the accident. Since in the case of composite negligence, the Claimants can elect to sue and recover compensation from all or any of the tortfeasor. Thus under Section 163-A of the Act also it would be the option of the Claimant to claim compensation from all or any of the owner/insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. I am fortified in this view by a Division Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ratheesh, MANU/KE/1687/2011, wherein while relying on United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Madhavan, 2011 (3) KLT 452 and after analyzing the provisions of Section 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Division Bench held as under:

“13. The legislature in 1994 introduced S.163A into the Statute book. While under S.140 even without proving any fault only a specific amount alone could be claimed, under S. 163A comprehensive claim can be staked for compensation by the victims who have suffered permanent disablement or legal heirs of a deceased victim.

14. Provisions of S.40 of the M.V. Act make it clear that payment under S.140 is only ad hoc and interim. The claimants are entitled, even after claiming the amount under S.140 of the M.V. Act, to claim the entire amount of compensation which would otherwise be payable by resort to S.166 of the M.V. Act. The only stipulation is that the amount paid under