Judgment : 1. 1st respondent is served. Respondents 2 to 5 appear though counsel. 2. This appeal arises from the award dated 24.04.2012 in OP(MV).4015 of 2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. 3. 1st respondent sustained injury in a motor accident on 18.01.2003. He claimed compensation alleging that while he was riding a motor cycle belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 5th respondent at the relevant time, he was hit by a scooter belonging to the 2nd respondent, insured with the appellant and which the 3rd respondent was riding. 1st respondent claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). 4. The respondents 2 to 5 contested the claim petition. Appellant did not file written statement. 5. The Tribunal found that since the claim is under Section 163A of the Act based on no fault liability it is not necessary to go into the question of negligence. The Tribunal found that respondents 4 and 5 being the owner and insurer of the motor cycle which the 1st respondent was riding, are not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal found the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 liable and directed the appellant to deposit the amount with interest. 6. Learned senior Advocate for the appellant has contended that since it is a 'self accident', the appellant is not liable. It is argued that Ext.A2, copy of final report would show that the 1st respondent/claimant was charge sheeted by the police for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle. Reliance is placed on the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha (2011 (4) KLT 821 [SC] ). 7. Though the appellant had not filed written statement the respondents 2 and 3, owner and rider of the insured vehicle had filed written statement. More over, it is open to the appellant to raise a question of law in the appeal even if it was not raised in the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that since the claim is under Section 163A of the Act, question of negligence is not required to be gone into. That view cannot stand in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court (referred supra). 8. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that since the claim is under Section 163A of the Act, question of negligence is not required to be gone into. That view cannot stand in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court (referred supra). Though the 1st respondent was not required to plead and prove 'wrongful act', 'neglect' or 'default' of the opposite parties, it was open to the opposite parties to plead and prove 'wrongful act', 'neglect' or 'default' of the 1st respondent as leading to the accident. 9. Ext.A2, copy of final report states that the 1st respondent was rash and negligent in riding the motor cycle and that resulted in the accident. Normally, in the absence of successful challenge to the final report, the statements therein are to be accepted. Unfortunately the 1st respondent has not adduced evidence to show that the final report against him is not correct may be under the impression that since the claim is under Section 163A of the Act the issue regarding negligence, even if it is attributed to him is not relevant. 10. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to give the 1st respondent opportunity to adduce evidence. For that purpose, the matter has to go back to the Tribunal. 11. Since I have decided to send the matter back to the Tribunal, it is made clear that appellant also can file written statement in answer to the claim. 12. The learned senior Advocate contends that income claimed by the 1st respondent would make the claim petition not maintainable under Section 163A of the Act. It is further argued that at any rate, the Award is not proper as it is not in tune with the structured formula provided under Section 163A of the Act. I make it clear that in case the appellant files written statement before the Tribunal, it is open to the appellant to raise all such contentions in that written statement. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed by way of remand as under:- i. Award dated 24.04.2012 in OP(MV).4015 of 2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is set aside. ii. OP(MV).No.4015 of 2003 is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above, after giving the appellant opportunity to file written statement and all the parties opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter. iii. ii. OP(MV).No.4015 of 2003 is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above, after giving the appellant opportunity to file written statement and all the parties opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter. iii. Parties shall appear in the Tribunal on 26.08.2013.