JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 13.12.2010 passed in MVOP No. 184 of 2006 by the IV-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.12.2003 while the petitioner was returning from Godishalapeta Village from Karimnagar driving the car bearing No. AP-15-N-6463 dashed a tree on the road side on the outskirts of Theegalaguttapalli at about 10.30 p.m., he received severe injuries which include fractures and was hospitalized. He filed a claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, against which the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum holding that the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle and the appellant-Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4. The said award was challenged by the Insurance Company in the present appeal contending that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and also that the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. 5. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company is based on the point that the accident having been occurred on account of the fault of the claimant himself, he cannot maintain a claim petition before the Tribunal below under Section 163-A of the Act and that the Tribunal below erred in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. The point, therefore, arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 7. To arrive at a decision on the afore-raised disputed question, it is necessary to go through the following judgments: (i) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and others, 2007 (3) ALD 99 (SC) = 2007 LAWS (SC) 4-7, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act, or under Section 163-A of the Act. Once• they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. Once• they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But, if they proceed under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle." (ii) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi and others, 2011 ACJ 721 , the question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the claimants can pursue the claims under Sections 166 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act simultaneously. The claimants filed claim under Section 166 of the Act on account of the' death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident and thereafter, filed an application under Section 166-A of the Act claiming compensation on structured formula basis. The Tribunal allowed compensation under Section 163-A of the Act and the claimants received the same. The claimants then filed application praying for permission to proceed with the claim application tinder Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the same and its order was affirmed by the High Court on the ground that the - proceedings under Section 166 of the Act were filed before award under Section 163-A was passed. Dealing with the situation, the Supreme Court held that the claimants having received compensation under Section 163-A of the Act are precluded from proceeding further with claim application under Section 166 of the Act. The Supreme Court clarified that the claimants must opt to go either for a proceeding under Section 163-A or under Section 166 but not under both." (iii) Recently, in National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha and others, 2012 (2) ALD 112 (SC) = 1 (2012) ACC 524 (SC), the Supreme Court after reviewing the law on the subject held that there is no basis for inferring that Section 163-A of the Act is founded under the 'no fault' liability principle. The Supreme Court explained that on a conjoint reading of Sections 140, 163-A, legislative intent is clear, that a claim for compensation raised under Section 163-A of Act need not be based on pleadings or proof at the hands of claimants showing absence of wrongful act, being neglect or default. In a claim under Section 163-A of the Act, it is open to owner or Insurance Company to defeat a claim under Section 163-A of Act by pleading and establishing' through cogent evidence a 'fault ground'. The Supreme Court, thus, ultimately took the view that undoubtedly Section 163-A of the Act is founded under 'fault' liability' principle." (iv) In Appaji (Since Deceased) and another v. M Krishna and another, 2004 ACJ 1289 , a Division Bench of Kamataka High Court held that Parliament did not intend to provide compensation to the person responsible for the accident on structured formula basis, neither the provisions nor the background in which the same were introduced disclose any such intention, the contention advanced on behalf of the claimants that non-obstante clause in Section 163-A would neutralize and render ineffective any provision in Motor Vehicles Act or any other law disentitling the claimants from payment of compensation where death was caused on account of rash and negligent act of the deceased himself was negatived and held that a claim on account of the death of a person who himself is responsible for the accident is maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act." 8. The learned Tribunal below fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company taking the view that in a claim preferred under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the permanent disablement is the result of any wrongful act, negligence, or defect of the owner of the vehicle concerned. The principal contention of the Insurance Company is that since the accident was on account of the fault of the claimant himself, he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Act. 9. In view of the legal position discussed above, the claim made under Section 163-A of the Act is founded on the fault liability principle. The law only enables the claimant to seek relief under Section 163-A of the Act on structured formula basis. 9. In view of the legal position discussed above, the claim made under Section 163-A of the Act is founded on the fault liability principle. The law only enables the claimant to seek relief under Section 163-A of the Act on structured formula basis. To fasten the liability on the Insurance Company, the claimant is required to establish either that he is a third party or that his risk is covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. The claimant in the instant case is admittedly not a third party. He did not adduce any evidence showing that the accident occurred in the course of his employment with the second respondent-owner of the vehicle or that under the terms and conditions of the policy under which the car involved in the accident was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company his risk is covered. The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the accident was on account of the fault of the claimant himself who was driving the vehicle at material time. Therefore, under law, he is not entitled to maintain a claim under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which founded on fault liability principle. Therefore, the Tribunal in my considered view went wrong in holding that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable before it and that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The said finding is liable to be set aside in the present appeal. 10. Consequently, the award passed by the Tribunal below insofar as it relates to the appellant-Insurance Company is set aside holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount, if any, deposited from the owner of the offending vehicle without instituting any separate suit. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.