JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Insurer") against the award dated 28.4.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No. 627 of 2009 (Ramesh Chandra Nishad and others v. Leeladhar Tripathi and others) whereby claim petition filed by claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2 (for short "claimants") has been allowed and compensation of Rs. 3,35,979/- alongwith 6.5% simple annual interest has been awarded. 2. The brief facts, arising out of this appeal, are that on 15.7.2009 at about 12 O'clock, the deceased Mahesh, aged about 24 years was riding as pillion rider on motorcycle, driven by one Sushil Kumar. When he was passing nearby a culvert situated near the Shastri Bridge within jurisdiction of P.S. Daraganj, Allahabad, driver of the vehicle TATA Mini Bus No. UP-70-AT-4058, driving the said vehicle, rash and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of Sushil Kumar whereby deceased Mahesh received grievous injuries, in result whereof he died on 16.7.2009, during treatment. First Information Report was lodged by one Sunil Kumar Nishad and Case Crime No. 173 of 2009 under sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, I.P.C., was registered at P.S. Daraganj, Allahabad. 3. Claim petition was filed by claimants (parents of deceased Mahesh) under section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act (for short "M.V. Act")/for compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs against the owner of vehicle/respondent No. 3 and Insurer. The said claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal by aforesaid impugned order and award. Aggrieved by the said award this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Sidharth Jaiswal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, learned Counsel for Insurer, Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for claimant, Smt. Neeraja Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 5. Learned Counsel for Insurer has submitted that accident was happened on 15.7.2009. At the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle had not any valid licence or authority to drive the said vehicle, because the driving licence (hereinafter referred to as "D.L.") of the driver Anant Lal who was driving the alleged vehicle at the time of accident, had expired on 10.7.2009 which was renewed after 13.10.2009. Thus, there is complete breach of policy. Thus, there is complete breach of policy. It has further been submitted that alleged accident was caused due to negligence of driver of motorcycle (Sushil Kumar) but the Tribunal has not held him for contributory negligence and held total negligence of the driver of offending vehicle TATA Mini Bus UP 70 AT-4058. The said judgment is against the evidence and material on record and also against the settled principle of law, which is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for claimants vehemently opposed the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for Insurer and submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment. It is further submitted that at the time of alleged accident motorcyclist Sushil Kumar was driving the motorcycle with slow and moderate speed. He was not negligent at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed under section 163-A of M.V. Act wherein the contributory negligence of the motorcyclist cannot be. taken as defence by Insurer. 7. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3/owner of the vehicle has submitted that alleged accident had not been caused by offending vehicle No. UP 70 AT 4058. It was being driven, at the time of alleged accident, by a qualified and skilled driver, having effective D.L. Mere fact that the validity of D.L. had been expired just 5 days prior to the date of accident, will not absolve Insurer from its liability to pay compensation because at the time of accident all the papers of vehicle were valid and it was insured by the Insurer. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. So far as question whether on the date of alleged accident i.e., 15.7.2009, driver of the offending vehicle No. UP 70 AT-4058 had any valid and effective licence or not, is concerned, respondent No. 3/owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement, filed before Tribunal, has specifically stated that all the papers including insurance cover policy and D.L. of the offending vehicle were effective and valid at the time of occurrence and at the time of accident, alleged vehicle was being driven by Anant Lal. 10. 10. D.W. 3, Anant Lal, driver of the offending vehicle, has stated before the Tribunal that on 15.7.2009 he was driver of UP 70 AT 4058 and at that time he had valid and effective licence to drive the alleged vehicle. D.W. 1, Sagir Ahmad is an official of the office of Road Transport Authority, Allahabad. He has stated on oath before the Tribunal that D.L. No. 4520/HTV/2000 is new number of old D.L. No. A-16767/A/97, issued on 3.4.1997 to Anant Lal (D.W. 3). According to him the old D.L. was valid from 3.4.1997 up to 2017, for Light Motor Vehicle (for short "LMV")/private vehicle. Filing copies of relevant document of records, kept in this regard in his office, he has further stated that D.L. was endorsed for driving of heavy transport vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "HTV") on 12.1.2000 which was valid from 12.1.2000 to 11.1.2003 and renewed thereafter from 22.2.2003 to 21.2.2006; from 11.7.2006 to 10.7.2009. No witness has been produced by the Insurer before the Tribunal to controvert the statement of either Anant Lal (D.W. 3) or Sagir Ahmad (D.W. 1) and only investigation report was filed wherein it has been admitted that D.L. No. 4520/HTV/2000 (old D.L. No. A-16767/A/97) has been issued on 3.4.1997 to Anant Lal (D.W. 3). The said old D.L. was issued for driving of LMV (non transport) which was later on endorsed for HTV. Thus the aforesaid investigation report also corroborate the statement of Sagir Ahmad (D.W. 1) that earlier a D.L. of LMV (non transport) A-16767/A/97 was issued to Anant Lal on 3.4.1997 which was later on endorsed for HTV. Thus it is clear that old licence of LMV was valid up to 2017 but the endorsement for driving of HTV was valid only for 10.7.2009 which was later on renewed from 13.10.2009 to 12.12.2012. 11. Sections 14, 15 and 149 of the M.V. Act deals with currency of D.L., provision regarding its renewal and the duty of insurer to satisfy the award against person insured in respect of third party risks including defence available to insure to avoid its liability, which are as under: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.-(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.-(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and] (b) in the case of any other licence- (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of [fifty years] on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of [fifty years], whichever is earlier; [(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:] Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry. 15. 15. Renewal of driving licences.-(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal : Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence. (2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf. (4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government : Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in sub-section (3): Provided further that if the application is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9. (5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence. 149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.-(1) if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is requirement to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of section 163 A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely: (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licenced, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification;-or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (3) Where any such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (1) is obtained from a Court in a reciprocating country and in the case of a foreign judgment is, by virtue of the provisions of section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) conclusive as to any matter adjudicated upon by it, the insurer (being ah insurer registered under the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) and whether or not he is registered under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country) shall be liable to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree in the manner and to the extent specified in sub-section (1), as if the judgment were given by a Court in India: Provided that no sum shall be payable by the insurer in respect of any such judgment unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given, the insurer had notice through the Court concerned of the bringing of the proceedings and the insurer to whom notice is so given is entitled under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, to be made a party to the proceedings and to defend the action on grounds similar to those specified in sub-section (2). (4) Where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any conditions other than those in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect: Provided that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this sub-section shall be recoverable by the insurer from that person. (5) If the amount which an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy exceeds the amount for which the insurer would apart from the provisions of this section be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person. (6) In this section the expression "material fact" and "material particular" means, respectively, a fact or particular of such a nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium and on what conditions, and the expression "liability covered by the terms of the policy" means liability which is covered by the policy or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel or has avoided or cancelled the policy. (7) No insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "Claims Tribunal" means a Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 and "award" means an award made by that Tribunal under section 168." (Emphasis supplied) 12. The aforesaid provision reveals that if a certificate of insurance has been issued in favour of insured, the insurer is under obligation, subject to the provision of section 149, to pay the person entitled to the benefit of decree (awarded compensation), though insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy. Sub-section 2 of section 149 provides the ground of defence which may be taken by the insurer to avoid its liability, wherein sub-clause (ii) provides that if the alleged vehicle is not being driven by a duly licensed person or has been driven by a person disqualified for holding or obtaining a D.L. during the period of disqualification or driven by any person which was excluded for driving. 13. In this case Insurer has not produced any evidence that Anant Lal (D.W. 3) was specifically disqualified for holding or obtaining D.L. It is also not the case of appellant that there was any condition in the D.L. to exclude him from driving. 14. 13. In this case Insurer has not produced any evidence that Anant Lal (D.W. 3) was specifically disqualified for holding or obtaining D.L. It is also not the case of appellant that there was any condition in the D.L. to exclude him from driving. 14. So far as question, whether driver of the offending vehicle, Anant Lal (D.W. 3), was duly licensed or not, at the time of accident, is concerned, proviso of section 15 sub-section (1) clearly provides that any D.L. may be renewed on an application, made by the licensee within 30 days, whereas proviso of section 14 sub-section 2; Clause b(ii) provides that every D.L. shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry. Thus from perusal of aforesaid provision it is clear that driving licence which was valid up to 10.7.2009 was also valid for further period of thirty days i.e., up to 9.8.2009. In view of above it is clear that at the time of alleged accident Anant Lal (D.W. 3) was duly licensed for driving of the offending vehicle, because accident in question has been caused on 15.7.2009. 15. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumari and others 2019 ACJ 225 , in similar case where the question had arisen as to whether D.L. would be effective and valid in case where accident was caused on 31.12.2006 but D.L. had expired on 25.12.2006, Division Bench of this Court, while relying on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), has held as under: "24. We would like to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 Paras 45 and 46 are required to be extracted for consideration of the issue involved in this case. Paras 45 and 46 read as under: "45. We would like to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 Paras 45 and 46 are required to be extracted for consideration of the issue involved in this case. Paras 45 and 46 read as under: "45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefore. Proviso appended to section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has 5 lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be deli censed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry." The Supreme Court appears to have considered the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the above noted paragraphs. It has specifically been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 45 that proviso appended to section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant insurer would be liable to pay the claimants the insured amount awarded by the Tribunal. The accident occurred within thirty days of expiry of the licence, therefore, under the proviso to section 14 of The Act, it remained effective. It disentitles the insurer to take a plea that the licence was not valid." 16. The accident occurred within thirty days of expiry of the licence, therefore, under the proviso to section 14 of The Act, it remained effective. It disentitles the insurer to take a plea that the licence was not valid." 16. It is also pertinent to mention at this juncture the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Kumar Sood v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 697 , where the driver of the alleged vehicle, having licence of LMV was driving the transport vehicle, in absence of specific authorization. Relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2016 (116) ALR 20 (SC) : 2016 (160) AIC 16 , Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under: "The issue which arises before the Court is not res integra and is covered by a judgment of three Judges of this Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., in which it has been inter alia held as follows: "60.1. "Light motor vehicle" as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994." "60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form." 17. In this case the alleged vehicle No. UP 70 AT 4058 is mini bus. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form." 17. In this case the alleged vehicle No. UP 70 AT 4058 is mini bus. From perusal of registration certificate of the said vehicle, filed by the claimant, which has also been verified by the investigator of appellant- Insurer, it transpires that unladen weight of alleged vehicle is 3250 kg and its laden weight is 5300 kg. section 2(21) of M.V. Act defines LMV which is as under: "Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross, vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilograms." 18. Thus it is clear that the alleged vehicle is light motor vehicle. According to Sagir Ahmad (D.W. 1), an official of the office of Road Transport Authority, Allahabad, old D.L. of Anant Lal (D.W. 3) was valid from 3.4.1997 to 2017 for LMV, private vehicle. According to him further, the said D.L. was endorsed for driving the HTV on 12.1.2000, which was valid from 12.1.2000 to 11.1.2003 and later on renewed from time to time up to 10.7.2009 and also renewed from 13.10.2009 to 12.12.2012. In my view, D.L. of Anant Lal, driver of the offending vehicle, valid up to 2017 for LMV private vehicle, was valid on the date of accident i.e., 15.7.2009 and its validity for LMV would not be affected merely on its subsequent endorsement for HTV. In addition to above, in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Devangan (supra) and followed in Jagdish Kumar Sood (supra), Anant Lal (D.W. 3) was qualified, having valid and effective D.L., to drive the alleged vehicle at the time of accident. 19. The M.V. Act is social and beneficial legislation. Its purpose is to compensate the poor and helpless family whose bread winner has died or become disabled due to motor accident. 19. The M.V. Act is social and beneficial legislation. Its purpose is to compensate the poor and helpless family whose bread winner has died or become disabled due to motor accident. Parliament was aware of the fact that in some cases where negligence of driver of offending vehicle could not be proved but since victim had died or suffered injuries due to such accident, in such cases some compensation ought to be awarded to him or his dependents, section 163-A of M.V. Act is the provision which does not require the claimant to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle, which is as under: "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. (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. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 20. Deceased Mahesh was travelling on the said motorcycle as a pillion rider which was being ridden by one Sushil Kumar. The claim petition has been filed under section 163-A of M.V. Act and it has been held by the Tribunal that motorcyclist Sushil Kumar was not negligent at the time of accident. Deceased Mahesh was travelling on the said motorcycle as a pillion rider which was being ridden by one Sushil Kumar. The claim petition has been filed under section 163-A of M.V. Act and it has been held by the Tribunal that motorcyclist Sushil Kumar was not negligent at the time of accident. Record shows that F.I.R. was lodged against the driver of offending vehicle i.e., TATA 407 mini bus, under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, I.P.C. and after due investigation charge-sheet was filed against Anant Lal Pal (D.W. 3), driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP 70 AT 4058 for rash and negligent driving. No evidence has been produced before the Tribunal by the appellant-Insurer regarding any negligence of motorcyclist, Sushil Kumar. It has now been settled by the Supreme Court that in claim petition, filed under section 163-A of M.V. Act, plea of contributory negligence cannot be taken. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji and another v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 ACJ 2161 , where a question was involved as to whether Insurance Company can take plea of contributory negligence in claim petition, under section 163-A of M.V. Act, filed by parents of driver of car which dashed the truck, resulting his death and other two persons traveling by car, relying on ratio of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar 2018 ACJ 1 (SC) has held as under: "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 and another, wherein it was held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to understand section 163-A 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 163-A of the Act, it would "bring a proceeding under section 163-A 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 163-A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation." (Emphasis supplied) 21. It is also settled principle of law that even if it is found that the alleged accident was caused due to composite negligence of drivers of both vehicles, claim petition for compensation may be filed against owners/drivers of both the vehicles or anyone of them. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273 : 2015 (150) AIC 116 (SC), has held as under: (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. 22. Thus Insurer cannot take plea either of contributory negligence of motorcyclist or that claim petition is defective as no compensation has been prayed from motorcyclist. 23. In view of the above discussion I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 24. Office is directed to return back the Lower Court record to Tribunal forthwith so that the awarded compensation be paid to the claimants in view of the impugned award. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25000/-, deposited by the Insurer before this Court, if not remitted, be also remitted to the Tribunal.