JUDGMENT : The question that emerges for decision in this appeal is whether the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay compensation to the claimant, where the accident has occurred due to the sole neglect or default or wrongful act of the claimant/deceased himself in an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, the 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.594/2013 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala has filed this appeal on the sole ground that the said Tribunal went wrong by fixing the liability to pay compensation to the legal representative of the deceased victim, on the appellant Insurance Company in an O.P. (M.V) filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, where, the accident has occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased himself. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the deceased himself. In such circumstances, the owner or the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in an O.P.(M.V) filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has failed to consider the liability of insurer under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in its correct respective. The tribunal granted Rs.3,88,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Only) as compensation and directed the appellant, Insurance Company to deposit the same to indemnify the 1st respondent. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have found that the claimants are not entitled for compensation as the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the late Mujeeb, the victim. In an O.P. (M.V) under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, when the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have non-suited the claimants; but went wrong by holding that the appellant is liable to pay the award amount to the claimant with an interest at a rate of 9% per annum, if the amount is not paid within three months. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents cited ( 2017 (4) KLT 1093 SC) United India Insurance Co. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents cited ( 2017 (4) KLT 1093 SC) United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sunil Kumar and contended that the negligence from the part of the deceased or claimant does not require consideration in an application for compensation under Section 163A of the Act. 6. On an analysis of the aforesaid decision, it could be seen that the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that, though Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the insurer and or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome an unduly long delay. 7. Therefore, this Court finds that while considering the liability of the owner or the insurer in an application filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence from the part of the claimant or deceased also does not require consideration. In a proceeding under S.163A of the Act it is not open for the owner or insurer to raise any defence of neglect or wrongful act or default of the claimant or deceased victim to escape from their liability. The only question to be considered is whether the accident has arisen out of the use of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. Moreover provisions of Section 163A are independent and have overriding effect on all provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Any interpretation taken contrary to the above view would defeat the object of the provision, based on structured formula. In the light of the above decision, the Tribunal is justified in fixing the liability to indemnify the 1st respondent on the appellant Insurance Company. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is therefore, dismissed accordingly.