Kuldip Singh, J.- This appeal has arisen out of award dated 1.7.2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, in MACC No. l-S/2 of 1999, dismissing the claim petition, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act), of the petitioner. For convenience, the parties are referred in the same manner, as in the impugned award.

2. The brief facts are that petitioner allegedly suffered injuries in car accident bearing No. HIS-2010 owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 and was being driven by petitioner at the time of accident. The respondent No. 1 is the wife of petitioner. The accident took place on 4.2.1998 at Jabli in Solan District, when petitioner was trying to save a child. In the accident petitioner suffered multiple injuries including fracture of left leg, which has resulted in permanent disability. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 5, 00,000/-, as compensation.

3. The respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte. The respondent No. 2 insurer filed the reply and has taken the plea that the petition is not maintainable. The further case of the respondent No. 2 is that the car was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The petitioner, who was driving the vehicle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation.

4. The learned Tribunal dismissed the petition, vide impugned award by holding that compensation for the death of or injury to a person, who himself is responsible for causing an accident cannot be claimed through the Tribunal under the Act constituted under Section 165 of the Act, hence petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has thus filed the appeal against the impugned award.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition being under Section 163-A of the Act, therefore, negligence of the petitioner who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident is not relevant for determining compensation. It has been urged that Section 163-A of the Act, is a special provision, which recognizes the principle of awarding .compensation without proof of negligence. The general principle of law that the person who himself is negligent cannot claim compensation, is not applicable in a petition under Section 163-A of the Act. It has been submitted that scope of Section 163-A has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. No specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that petitioner in fact was negligent for causing the accident. The Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned award and has submitted that Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.

7. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was driving the car at the time of the accident. The car was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2. In general law, owner and insurance company can be made liable if the accident takes place due to the negligence of the driver, wrong doer himself cannot claim compensation. In other words, if the driver is himself negligent, he cannot claim compensation against the owner and the insurance company. The Section 163-A of the Act, however does not require proof of negligence of driver before claiming compensation, Section 163-A, is reproduced herein below:- "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal