JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to award, dated 9th May, 2012, made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II (Fast Track Court), Kullu, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC No. 01 of 2012, titled as Sh. Mohan Lal and another versus Jhabe Ram and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-insurer has called in question the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) and was not maintainable as the claimants had claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 8,000/- per month. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is forceful for the reason that the Division Bench of this Court in a case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Sh. Sihnu Ram and others, being FAO No. 474 of 2010, decided on 28th September, 2016, has held that claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act can be maintained if the income of the victim of a vehicular accident is less than Rs.40,000/- per annum. Thus, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act was not maintainable. 6. But, keeping in view the fact that granting of compensation is a social legislation, this Court can treat the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurer argued that the deceased was himself driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident and the claimants are the parents of the deceased, thus, the claim petition under Section 166 is also not maintainable. 8. Rash and negligent driving is sine qua non for maintaining a claim petition seeking compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 166 of the Act. 9. 8. Rash and negligent driving is sine qua non for maintaining a claim petition seeking compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 166 of the Act. 9. My this view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Premlata Shukla & others, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3591. It is apt to reproduce para-10 of the judgment herein:- “10. The insurer, however, would be liable to re-imburse the insured to the extent of the damages payable by the owner to the claimants subject of course to the limit of its liability as laid down in the Act or the contract of insurance. Proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act.” 10. The Apex Court in another case titled as Ningamma and another versus United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 , has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce pars 21, 24 and relevant portion of para 25 of aforesaid judgment herein. “21. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 22. …........... 23. ….......... 24. However, the question remains as to whether an application for demand of compensation could have been made by the legal representatives of the deceased as provided in Section 166 of the MVA. 22. …........... 23. ….......... 24. However, the question remains as to whether an application for demand of compensation could have been made by the legal representatives of the deceased as provided in Section 166 of the MVA. The said provision specifically provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made by the person who has sustained the injury; or by the owner of the property; or where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. 25. When an application of the aforesaid nature claiming compensation under the provisions of Section 166 is received, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award which, however, would be subject to the provisions of Section 162, by determining the amount of compensation, which is found to be just. Person or persons who made claim for compensation would thereafter be paid such amount. When such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving..............” 11. It would be profitable to reproduce paras 9 & 10 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Arora & another versus Dr. Manoj Bisla & others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2241, herein: “9. Admittedly, the petition filed by the claimants was under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163A of the Act. This is not in dispute. Therefore, it was the entire responsibility of the parents of the deceased to have established that respondent No.1 drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the fatal accident. Maybe, in order to help respondent No.1, the claimants had not taken up that plea before the Tribunal. Therefore, High Court was justified in sustaining the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. We make it clear that if for any reason, the claimants had filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Act, then the dicta of this Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. Therefore, High Court was justified in sustaining the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. We make it clear that if for any reason, the claimants had filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Act, then the dicta of this Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. ( AIR 2001 SC 485 : 2001 AIR SCW 85) (supra) would have come to the assistance of the claimants. 10. In our view the issue that we have raised for our consideration is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ( AIR 2007 SC 1609 : 2007 AIR SCW 2362) (supra). In the said decision the Court stated: “…….Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependents 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. 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.” 12. Applying the test to the instant case, the deceased was himself driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident as is evident from the perusal of the FIR, Ex. P-W2/A. 13. At this stage, Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, stated at the Bar that the claimants have received 50% of the awarded amount with interest, are poor, rustic villagers. 14. Keeping in view the fact that the claimants are the parents of the deceased, have been dragged to the lis due to the traffic accident and are contesting the claim petition from the year 2012 till today, I deem it proper to direct that no recovery be effected from the claimants. 15. The amount, which is still lying deposited before this Court, be released in favour of the appellant-insurer through payee's account cheque. 16. The impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.