JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh Distt. Sri Ganganagar in MACT Case No. 41/2008, whereby the respondents/claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,15,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition. 2. The respondents/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") claiming compensation of Rs. 19,45,400/- on account of death of their son Sukhdev Prakash who was undergoing training of Tractor Mechanic at Industrial Training Institution, Anoopgarh (1TI). It is stated that on account of rash and negligent driving on his part, he fell down from the tractor and died. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was not authorised to take the tractor outside the IT1 premises without obtaining a prior permission of the competent authority, nor trainer was with him when he had taken the tractor outside the ITI premises without permission and thus, since the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased Sukhdev himself therefore, the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants was not maintainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that in a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act which covers even the cases where the negligence is on the part of victim himself. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Rekha & Ors., MACD 2007(1) (Raj.) 676 . 5. In Smt. Rekha's case (supra), this Court after consideration of the provisions of Section 163A and other relevant provisions so also various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision in the matter of Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385 categorically held that Section 163A of the Act covers even the cases where the accident occurred on account of exclusive fault or negligence on the part of the victim himself. 6. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "66. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385 categorically held that Section 163A of the Act covers even the cases where the accident occurred on account of exclusive fault or negligence on the part of the victim himself. 6. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "66. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for example "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "any other law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes to show that Parliament intended to insert a non obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of." (Emphasis supplied) 7. Thus, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants is devoid of any merit. 8. No other point has been pressed. 9. In this view of the matter, the appeal lacks merits, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******