JUDGMENT : V.P. Patel, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant Original-Opponent No.2 (United India Insurance Company) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter it will be referred as M.V. Act), being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 08.09.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.96 of 2003. Facts of the case :- 2. On 20th April 2002, the deceased (Maheshbhai Panabhai Makwana) was going on Scooter bearing Registration No. GJ 1 FF6567. Near Kinetic Honda, Showroom, Paldi, Cross-roads in Ahmedbad, at about 4.00 p.m. the Scooter slipped and accident has taken place in which the deceased sustained serious injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, the heirs of the dependents of deceased have filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar. It is stated in the petition that the opponent No.1 did not keep the Scooter under the proper maintenance and roadworthy conditions and due to the negligence of the owner of the vehicle the accident has happened. The Opponent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle is joined as a party and appellant/United India Insurance Company has joined as Opponent No.2. It is stated that all the opponents, jointly and severely, are liable to pay compensation in the claim petition. The petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act under 'no fault liability'. It is also stated that the date of birth of the deceased was 12th September 1956, means, the deceased was 45 years old at the time of accident. He was serving in Income Tax department and his monthly income was Rs.7450/- per month. Thus, he was earning Rs.89,400/- per year. It is stated that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, maximum annual income of Rs. 40,000/- be considered for the claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Therefore, amount of Rs.3,71,184/- as compensation as per the structural formula given in the second schedule appended to the M.V. Act. Defence : 3. Notice to the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 were served. Opponent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal. The Opponent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement at Exh.14 and contested the case before the tribunal. It is contested that the Opponent No.2 does not admit the accident, injury, involvement of the Scooter etc. Defence : 3. Notice to the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 were served. Opponent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal. The Opponent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement at Exh.14 and contested the case before the tribunal. It is contested that the Opponent No.2 does not admit the accident, injury, involvement of the Scooter etc. It is also stated that Opponent No.1 did not admit holding of valid driving licence on the date of accident. It is not admitted that the Scooter bearing Registration No.GJ 1 FF6567 was insured with the Appellant- Insurance Company. It is not also admitted as regards the negligence of the Opponent No.1 owner of the Scooter. The Insurance Company has also not admitted the age and income of the deceased and requested to dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimants. Alternatively it is stated that the deceased was going in full speed and on account of his own negligence, this accident had happened and so the percentage of his negligence is calculated and awarded the amount. Findings of the learned Tribunal : 4. Learned Tribunal has framed issue at Exh.16 in the MACP Case No. 96 of 2003. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act and passed following order, which reads as under : "(1)The petition under Sec.163-A of the M V Act, 1988 is hereby allowed. (2) The claimants do recover an amount of Rs.3,71,184=00 (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four Only) towards compensation together with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation from opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. (3) ................................" 5. The appellant has filed this appeal for the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal. Submission of the parties : 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Hina Desai has argued that the judgment and award is contrary to law and against the facts on the record and that the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to satisfy the award; It is also argued that the claim tribunal ought to have appreciated that the deceased was riding his scooter and allegedly the scooter slipped and accident took place as a result of which deceased succumbed to the injuries and expired. It clearly emerges that the deceased died due to his own negligence. In that view of the matter, the claim deserves to fail; that the Motor Vehicle Act is based on law of Tort, which automatically and necessarily states that the injured person can claim compensation for the injury caused to him for the negligence of the other and he cannot claim compensation of his own wrong. that the Court erred in coming to the conclusion that under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act no right to cross-examine, across and that it has to be conducted only on the affidavit. that the Court has not properly appreciated the judgment reported in 2001 ACJ page 940. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Raxit Dholakia has vehemently argued that as far as claim under Section 163 A of the MV Act is concerned, the Negligence is not required to be pleaded and proved by the claimant. The claim is on no fault liability and payment of compensation be made on structural formula. It is also argued that the claimant shall not be required to establish that the death 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 the other person. 8. Mr. Raxit Dholakia learned advocate for the claimant/respondent has also argued that the appellant/Insurance Company has not taken permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. Therefore, the appeal is not tenable in eye of law. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon the judgments which will be discussed hereinafter. Merit of the case : 10. It is necessary to refer the evidence produced by the parties before the tribunal, which are as under: The claimants have produced following evidence :- Oral Evidence : Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. 1 Deposition in form of Affidavit of Lalitaben Maheshbhai 17 Documentary Evidence : Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. Merit of the case : 10. It is necessary to refer the evidence produced by the parties before the tribunal, which are as under: The claimants have produced following evidence :- Oral Evidence : Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. 1 Deposition in form of Affidavit of Lalitaben Maheshbhai 17 Documentary Evidence : Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. 1 Salary slip of the deceased M.P. Makwana 19 2 Statement of expenditure of treatment and medicine of Rs.37,588.33/ 20 3 Claimant's FIR 24 4 Panch nama of scene of accident 25 5 Policy issued by the Insurance Company 26 6 RC book of the Vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ 1 FF6567 27 7 PM Note of the deceased 28 8 Salary slip of the deceased 29 9 School leaving certificate of the deceased 30 11. The opponent has produced following evidence: Oral Evidence : Nil Documentary Evidence : 1 Policy issued buy the Insurance Company 22 12. As far as the contention as regards the negligence is concerned, it is not applicable for the claim petition filed under Section 163 A of the MV Act. Section 163 (A) (2) is provided for the said purpose, which reads as under : "(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), 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." 13. Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on the judgment rendered in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Muna Maya Basant W/O Sher Bahadur reported in, (2001) 1 GLR 915 , it has been observed as under: "..............Section 163-A, the new provision about no fault liability, came to be introduced from 14-11-1994. When the decision was rendered by this Court on 14th October, 1985, Section 163-A introducing the concept of no-fault liability was absent, and the principle to claim compensation on no-fault liability was foreign to the then Act in force. The decision rendered keeping old law in mind is, therefore, not applicable. Section 163-A has brought drastic change in the concept of tortious liability prevailing prior to it. The decision rendered keeping old law in mind is, therefore, not applicable. Section 163-A has brought drastic change in the concept of tortious liability prevailing prior to it. It by non-obstante clause permits even the tortfeasor to claim compensation on the principle of no-fault liability which otherwise he is (if employee and has done wrong in the discharge of his duty) entitled to under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; or under the contract of insurance. The contention therefore fails................................." 14. This Court has come across follow judgments. 14.1 In case of Shivaji and Anr. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors., (2018) AIR SC 3705 the Honourable Court has observed as under: "5 The issue which arises before us is no longer res integra and is covered by a recent judgment of three judges of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr., (2017) AIR SC 5710, wherein it was held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to understand Section 163A of the Act as contemplating such a situation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction of this provision, which is "final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time". The Court observed that if an insurer was permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section 163A of the Act, it would "bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention". Consequently, it was held that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation." 14.2 In case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar and Anr., (2017) AIR SC 5710 the Honourable Court has observed as under : 8. Consequently, it was held that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation." 14.2 In case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar and Anr., (2017) AIR SC 5710 the Honourable Court has observed as under : 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication the reunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the 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 situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim." 15. The claimant of the above judgment had filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, which was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the same is not maintainable since the injured himself was driving the vehicle. The claimant of the above judgment had filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, which was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the same is not maintainable since the injured himself was driving the vehicle. The Honourable Supreme Court has passed the order on 29th October 2013 in Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013 and the matter is referred to the larger Bench. The larger Bench has held above quoted ratio in the judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710 . 16. Considering the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in above referred cases, facts and circumstances of the case under the Supreme Court judgment and the facts of the present case, the issue of negligence cannot be taken by the Insurance Company for the claim under Section 163A of the MV Act. Therefore, contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is not tenable. 17. Learned advocate for the respondent has argued on one another ground that the permission under Section 170 of the MV Act is not granted by the tribunal to the Insurance Company. 18. This Court has gone through the record of the learned Tribunal and also the Record and proceedings handed over to the learned Advocates for both the side and to see as to whether the application under Section 170 of the MV Act is filed before the tribunal by the Insurance Company or not. 19. On perusing the record, both the learned advocates, specially, learned advocate for the Insurance Company are not able to point out that any application under Section 170 of the MV Act is filed and permission is granted by the learned Tribunal to the Insurance Company to contest the claim on or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom that claim has been made. 20. Learned advocate for the respondent has stated that the judgment in case of Josphine James vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in, (2013) 16 SCC 711 the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under : "21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Insurance Company is not entitled to file appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant for the reasons stated supra. Ltd. and another reported in, (2013) 16 SCC 711 the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under : "21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Insurance Company is not entitled to file appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant for the reasons stated supra. In the absence of the same, the Insurance Company had only limited defence to contest in the proceedings as provided under Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court on 13.1.2012 reducing the compensation to 4,20,000/- under the heading of loss of dependency by deducting 50% from the monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 5,000/- and applying 14 multiplier, is factually and legally incorrect. The High Court has erroneously arrived at this amount by applying the principle of law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation instead of applying the principle laid down in Baby Radhika Gupta's case regarding the multiplier applied to the fact situation and also contrary to the law applicable regarding the maintainability of appeal of the Insurance Company on the question of quantum of compensation in the absence of permission to be obtained by it from the Tribunal under Section 170 (b) of the M.V. Act. In view of the aforesaid reason, the High Court should not have allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company as it has got limited defence as provided under section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is vitiated in law and hence, is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant." 21. The contention as regards to contest the case as per the statutory provision under Section 149(2) is not available in absence of permission granted to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the MV Act. Hence, it is to be concluded that the appellant has no right to file the appeal. 22. The learned advocate for the appellant has not contested this petition on the ground of quantum of compensation paid to the claimant. Hence the issue is not required to be dealt with. 23. Hence, it is to be concluded that the appellant has no right to file the appeal. 22. The learned advocate for the appellant has not contested this petition on the ground of quantum of compensation paid to the claimant. Hence the issue is not required to be dealt with. 23. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the provision applicable to decide this appeal, the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and by this Court in above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that the appeal is required to be dismissed. The Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. 24. The appellant/Insurance Company will bear the costs of the appeal as well as the cost of the respondent/claimants. 25. R & P be sent back forthwith.