JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the claim petition. According to the appellant, the claim petition was itself not tenable on the ground that the income of the respondent no.1 was more that Rs.40,000/-. Secondly, the Tribunal has wrongly recorded the factual position in the matter and thirdly, the respondent no.1 being one of the tortfeasor in the accident was not entitled to file the application for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. To understand the controversy involved in the matter, certain facts are necessary to be considered in the present appeal.

4. The respondent no.1 is the original claimant, filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act for grant of compensation towards the injury caused to him in the motor accident.

5. It is the case of the respondent no.1, that on 01.01.2012 when he was going to Pimpalgaon from his house, by motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-29-AC-2140 at about 5.00 p.m., one auto bearing registration no.MH-29-4540 driven by respondent no.2 came from

opposite direction and gave dash to respondent no. 1’s motorcycle. In this accident he sustained fracture injuries and therefore, he filed the claim petition.

6. The appellant pointed out that the Police Station, Yavatmal has registered the crime bearing no.1/2012 under Section 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code against respondent nos.1 and 2. The appellant further pointed out that the vehicle insured with the appellant Company is the Auto bearing registration no. MH-29-4540 and not the motorcycle, which was driven by respondent no.1.

7. The record shows that before the Tribunal, respondent no.2 remained absent, due to which the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and respondent no. 3 died during the pendency of claim petition and petition was abatted against him. Hence, contesting party before the Tribunal was the present appellant and respondent no.1 claimant.

8. In the present appeal despite issued notice was duly served on the respondents, no one is appeared. Hence, on the basis of available record before me, I proceeded to decide the present appeal.

9. At the out set, the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’be Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma and anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Limited AIR 2009 SC 3056, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 15 as under :

“15. A number of decisions have been rendered by this Court in respect of the Section 163A of the MVA. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,(2004) 5 SCC 385, at page 402, one of us (Hon'ble Justice S. B. Sinha) has observed as follows:

“42. Section 163-A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000 having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto, compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in columns 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation with