JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated 05.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short) by which the petition filed under Section 163A of the Act filed by the claimant has been dismissed. 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 23.04.2012 at about 7.05 p.m. deceased Vincy George was riding his motor cycle along with two pillion riders from Belthangady to Guruvayanakere. When he reached near Kasaba Village, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA19-F-2489, which came from the opposite direction, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforeaid accident, deceased Vincy sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. The claimant viz., the mother thereupon filed a petition under Section 163A of the Act inter alia on the ground that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 24 years and was employed as an auto driver. He used to earn Rs.40,000/- per annum. The compensation to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was claimed. The corporation filed the written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the bike by the deceased and he was traveling with two pillion riders. It was further pleaded that police have filed First Information Report and have filed the charge sheet against the deceased. It was pointed out that the petition is bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the Insurance Company, which had insured the bike has not been impleaded. 4. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant in order to prove her case examined herself as PW1 and produced as many as eight documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondent examined the driver of the bus viz., Babu Ramdas Rathod and exhibited two documents viz., spot mahazar and spot sketch viz., Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The claimant in order to prove her case examined herself as PW1 and produced as many as eight documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondent examined the driver of the bus viz., Babu Ramdas Rathod and exhibited two documents viz., spot mahazar and spot sketch viz., Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned judgment inter alia held that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving ion the part of the deceased, in which deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Claims Tribunal held that the claimant is not entitled to compensation. Accordingly, the petition filed by the claimant was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the claimant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Claims Tribunal in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act could not have gone into the issue of negligence and ought to have appreciated that the issue with regard to negligence need not be proved in a proceeding. It is also urged that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer cannot be permitted to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ' UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR, (2017) AIR SC 5710 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the petition filed by the claimant suffers from the vice of non joinder of necessary party inasmuch as insurer of the bike was not impleaded. It is further submitted that from material on record, it is evident that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bike by the deceased. It is also argued that if the claimant himself is the tort feasor, he cannot take the benefit of provisions of Section 163A of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that when an accident happens through the combined negligence of two persons, he alone is liable to the other who had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident by reasonable care, and who then knew or ought to have known of the danger caused by the other's negligence. It is well settled in law that when an accident happens through the combined negligence of two persons, he alone is liable to the other who had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident by reasonable care, and who then knew or ought to have known of the danger caused by the other's negligence. [See: SALAMOND ON THE LAW OF TORTS, TWELFTH EDITION 1957 PAGE 439-441]. The general rule is that the vehicle should be driven at a speed which enables the driver to stop within the limits of his vision and failure to do this will almost always result in the driver being held, in whole or in part, responsible for the collision. [See: CLERK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS, ELEVENTH EDITION, 1954 PAGES 368-370]. It is equally well settled legal proposition that burden of proving negligence lies on the person who alleges it. However, facts of the accident may by themselves constitute evidence of negligence and to such a case the Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor apply which means the things speak for itself. The aforesaid rule is one of the exception to the general rule that burden of proving negligence lies on the person who alleges it. The Supreme Court in ' MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. LAKSHMAN IYER AND ORS, (2003) AIR SC 4182 held that the crucial question in case of contributory negligence is whether either party could by reasonable care, have avoided the consequences of other's negligence. 7. A division Bench of this court in ' SHARADABAI VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (1987) ILR(KAR) 2730 has held that in order to discharge the burden of proof with regard to contributory negligence, it is unnecessary for the propounder of that defence to adduce evidence about the matter and contributory negligence can be and very often is inferred from the evidence already adduced by the claimants or from the perceptive facts. However, the finding with regard to contributory negligence has to be recorded on the basis of proper consideration of the pleadings and legal evidence adduced by both the parties and the same cannot be based merely on police records. [See: ' MINUROUT VS. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA, (2013) 10 SCC 695 AND ' SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD, (2014) 15 SCC 450 . [See: ' MINUROUT VS. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA, (2013) 10 SCC 695 AND ' SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD, (2014) 15 SCC 450 . It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ' USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES, (2009) 14 SCC 71 '. In ' MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, (2018) 5 SCC 656 . The Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SINITHA, (2012) 2 SCC 356 , while dealing with nature and scope of liability under Section 163(A) of the Act, held that onus of proof of contributory negligence lies on the shoulders of the defendant, in a proceeding under Section 163(A) of the Act and in case it is found that deceased had contributed in causing the accident, the compensation under Section 163(A) of the Act may be reduced on proof of such contributory negligence. 8. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the view taken in SINITHA's case, supra and in ' UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR, (2014) 1 SCC 680 referred the matter to a larger Bench for correct interpretation of Section 163(A) of the Act. Thereafter, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in ' UNITED INSURANCE CO. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR, (2017) AIR SC 5710 , held that in a proceeding under Section 163(A) of the Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by another three judge bench of the Supreme Court in ' SHIVAJI AND ANR. Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD, (2018) AIR SC 3705 . However, undoubtedly, where the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved in the accident, he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 163(A) of the Act. (See: ' PREM KUMARI Vs. PRAHLAD DEV, (2008) 3 SCC 193 ). 9. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine the facts of the case in hand. In the instant case, in the accident, two vehicles are involved. (See: ' PREM KUMARI Vs. PRAHLAD DEV, (2008) 3 SCC 193 ). 9. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine the facts of the case in hand. In the instant case, in the accident, two vehicles are involved. The respondent has taken a plea of negligence on the part of the driver of the bike which cannot be raised in a proceeding under Section 163(A) of the Act, in view of three judge bench decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of SUNIL KUMAR , supra and SHIVAJI AND ANR ., supra. However, In the instant case the Tribunal has dismissed the petition filed by the claimant on the ground the deceased himself was negligent in driving the bike. The aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to law and cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the Tribunal has failed to take into account the aforesaid well settled legal position. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident has occurred rash and negligent driving of the bike by the deceased is set aside. 10. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation. The deceased was an auto driver and was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a. and was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the multiplier of 17 has to be applied as per the second Schedule appended to the Act. One-Third of the aforesaid amount has to be deducted on account of personal expenses as per the note attached to the second schedule of the Act. Thus, the yearly amount of dependency comes to Rs.26,666/- and if multiplier of 17 is adopted, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,53,333/- on account of loss of dependency. In addition, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate, respectively. Thus, the total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs.4,57,833/-, which shall be payable by the Corporation. In the result, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed.