Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dt. 10.7.2000 by which, it dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by holding that since deceased died due to his own negligence and even otherwise death took place six days after the date of incident due to Septicemia not directly because of the accident, the claimants are not entitled for any claim. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Smt.Rekha and others : 2008(1) T.A.C. 462 (Raj.) = RLW 2007(3) Raj. 2536 and argued that this claim petition has been filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which negligence of the offending vehicle was not required to be proved. Claim petition could not be dismissed on that ground. In support of his argument, learned counsel has cited the full bench decision of the Kerala High Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Malathi C.Salian : 2003 ACJ 2033. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents nevertheless, this appeal is being examined on merit it being old one on the basis of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and argument of the respondent insurance company raised before the Tribunal. 4. Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Smt.Rekha (supra) rejected the similar argument of insurance company that even if offending vehicle was covered by the act on policy, insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation if the victim/deceased himself was negligent. 5. Kerala High Court in Malathi C.Salian also considered the ground that claim under Section 163A cannot be defeated by insurance company only on the ground that death or permanent disablement has occurred due to wrongful act of loss of life. Insurance company is statutorily obliged to discharge the liability under the structured formula. 6. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 = RLW 2004(2) SC 252, it was held by the Supreme Court that there was negligence on the part of the victim. 7. Insurance company is statutorily obliged to discharge the liability under the structured formula. 6. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 = RLW 2004(2) SC 252, it was held by the Supreme Court that there was negligence on the part of the victim. 7. Finding of the learned Tribunal that death of the deceased took place due to Septicemia and not because of direct result of the accident also cannot be sustained because AW-4 Dr.Rohit Pandya, who appea-red before the Tribunal as a witness has proved the fact that Septicemia was a result of the accident and the death of the deceased was as a result of Septicemia therefore that finding cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the same within a period of nine months from the date of service of notice on the insurance company. Record be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.