RAFIQ, J.—This appellant-The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has filed this appeal assailing the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,59,600/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, District Jaipur vide award dated 13/2/2012 in a death claim of deceased-Laxmi Narayan @ Kuldeep. Claimant-respondents No.1 and 2 are mother and father of deceased-Laxmi Narayan @ Kuldeep. Even the brother of the driver i.e. AW2 Daulta Ram and brother of driver Amar Singh who lodged the FIR, have not mentioned number of the motorcycle therefore, involvement of the vehicle in the accident was not proved. The truck, which was rightly involved owing to which, it is alleged that the motorcycle had skid and the accident took place, has also not been identified. In the FIR, it was alleged that Amar Singh was driving the motorcycle while Laxmi Narayan @ Kuldeep was a pillion ride. AW2 Daulta Ram the informant in his cross-examination has stated that he has mentioned this fact but why the police has not written so, he cannot say. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the document Exb.3 the FIR as well as the statement of AW3 Subhram, IO who could not show in the site plan Exb.3 & 4 the number of motorcycle and the name of the driver, who was driving the motorcycle, whereas the fact is AW2 Amar Singh was driving the motorcycle, who did not die but it was the pillion rider i.e. Laxmi Narayan @ Kuldeep, who died. All these facts cumulatively show that a false case has been prepared for claiming compensation against the appellant-insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act of 1988. If, driver of the motorcycle himself died, he cannot claim compensation on the analogy that he cannot stand to gain by his own wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. 2. If, driver of the motorcycle himself died, he cannot claim compensation on the analogy that he cannot stand to gain by his own wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. 2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and perusing the material available on record as well as the statements of AW2 Amar Singh and AW3 Subhram, I find that AW2, even if has lodged the FIR but mere omission of fact by him that motorcycle was being driven by Amar Singh and number of the motorcycle was not mentioned, cannot be a reason to hold that accident did not took place involving the motorcycle. This has otherwise been proved in evidence that it was deceased-Laxmi Narayan @ Kuldeep when he died as a pillion rider. As regards the omission on the part of AW3 Subhram in Exb.4 is concerned, he has stated therein that driver of the motorcycle died, in his statement, AW3 has clarified that he made this omission due to mistake on his part but the police has ultimately also find involvement of the vehicle. The police does not found mens rea of AW2 Amar Singh and therefore it has filed negative final report. Even otherwise, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 163A of the Act of 1988, In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 166, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. In the present case, it has not been held even proved that it was deceased, who was driving the motorcycle. What has been held is that it was respondent No.3-Amar Singh, who was driving the motorcycle and deceased died. 3. I therefore do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.