JUDGMENT :

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2011 made in MCOP No. 555 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.

2. Appellant insurance company is respondent No. 2 in MCOP No. 555 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,25,000 as compensation for the death of one Murugan, who died in the accident that took place on 2.6.2008. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed the said claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the fact the Tribunal framed issue whether the deceased died in the road accident or not and held that the deceased died in the road accident and awarded compensation. Challenging the said award dated 27.9.2011 made in MCOP No. 555 of 2009 granting compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6-claimants, the appellant insurance company has come out with the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company contended that the deceased Murugan died due to his own fault and due to his negligence. In such circumstances, the claim petition filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal failed to note that the deceased borrowed the motor cycle from the respondent No. 7, owner of the vehicle, and the deceased had no valid driving licence at the time of accident and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sinitha, 2012 ACJ 1 (SC), held that the claimants are not entitled to compensation for the death of victim when the deceased died due to his own negligence.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents and perused the materials available on record.

5. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed the said claim petition under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC), referred above, held that tortfeasor is not entitled to claim compensation. It is also held that only when the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable, the victim or legal heirs of the deceased can claim compensation from the insurance company. Subsequent to the above judgment this issue was considered by the three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, 2018 ACJ 1 (SC) and Shivaji v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 ACJ 2161 (SC) and it is held that insurance company is not entitled to raise objection on negligence when the claim petition is filed under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant portions of the said judgments are extracted herein:

(i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, 2018 ACJ 1 (SC):

"(7) ...Section 163-A, on the other hand, was introduced in the new Act for the first time to remedy the situation where determination of final compensation on fault basis under section 163-A of the Act was progressively getting protracted. The legislative intent and purpose was to provide for payment of final compensation to a class of claimants (whose income was below Rs. 40,000 per annum) on the basis of a structured formula without any reference to fault liability. In fact, in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra), the Bench had occasion to observe that:

'Compensation amount is paid without pleading or proof of fault, on the principle of social justice as a social security measure because of ever increasing motor vehicle accidents in a fast moving society. Further, the law before inser