JUDGMENT : The claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.1.2012, passed in MVC No.981/2010, by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that, on 4.5.2009, at about 13.30 hours, the claimant was proceeding from Tolagi to Itagi on motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/S-9364, in a moderate speed. At that time the driver of Maruti car bearing registration No.KA-23/M-4112 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner towards wrong side and dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant resulting into accident and consequently injuries were caused to him. He was admitted in Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi, where he took treatment by spending amount. He was aged about 23 years and working as a mason earning Rs. 40,000/-per year. Therefore he claimed compensation under section 163A of the M.V.Act, against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. In pursuance of the notice, respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 insurer appeared through his counsel and filed objections denying the claim of the claimant, his age, income and occupation. It is also denied that accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car. It is also contended that the driver of Maruti car did not possess a valid and effective driving license. It is contended that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant himself. Therefore he is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.2 examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. 5. The tribunal, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs. 90,955/-, however, directed deduction of 50% of the said compensation towards the negligence on the part of the claimant in causing the accident and thereby award came to be passed for Rs. 45,478/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Respondent No.2 insurer was directed to pay the compensation amount. 6. 90,955/-, however, directed deduction of 50% of the said compensation towards the negligence on the part of the claimant in causing the accident and thereby award came to be passed for Rs. 45,478/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Respondent No.2 insurer was directed to pay the compensation amount. 6. The claimant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, wherein 50% of the compensation was deducted towards his negligence in causing the accident, has filed the present appeal. It is contended that the tribunal was not justified in holding that the appellant has contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% and thereby deducted 50% of the compensation awarded in the claim petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Sunil Kumar and another, AIR 2017 SC 5710 and the judgment of this Court in The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Raichur, vs. Smt.Kamalamma and others, 2019 (2) KAR.L.J. 575 , submitted that two vehicles are involved in the case and the negligence is also attributed against the petitioner and the driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the claimant has got an option either to file the petition under section 163A or under section 166 of the M.V. Act under such circumstances. Therefore the learned counsel further submitted that deduction of 50% of the compensation awarded in the case towards the negligence of the claimant is not sustainable in law and that he is entitled for the entire compensation amount awarded in the claim petition. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer has supported the impugned judgment and award. 9. The tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident in question occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant as well as the driver of the offending vehicle, since the accident occurred on the middle of the road as can be seen from Ex.P.4 sketch map of the scene of accident. It is necessary to observe that the claimant has not claimed any compensation against his own insurer. But he made the claim petition as a third party against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Admittedly two vehicles are involved in the accident. It is necessary to observe that the claimant has not claimed any compensation against his own insurer. But he made the claim petition as a third party against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Admittedly two vehicles are involved in the accident. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Sunil Kumar and others, stated supra, the Apex Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment has held as follows: “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 thereunder 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.” 10. Therefore in the case on hand also the insurer cannot be permitted to raise the question of negligence on the part of the claimant, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and the compensation is determined in terms of Schedule II to the M.V. Act. Therefore in the case on hand also the insurer cannot be permitted to raise the question of negligence on the part of the claimant, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and the compensation is determined in terms of Schedule II to the M.V. Act. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that there is negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 50% in causing the accident and therefore he is not entitled for 50% of the compensation awarded in the claim petition is illegal, perverse and the same is liable to be set aside and that the claimant is entitled for recovery of entire compensation awarded in the claim petition from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER : The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 27.01.2012 passed in MVC No.981/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT, Belgaum, so far as deducting 50% of the compensation towards negligence of the appellant, is set aside. It is ordered that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.90,955/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization to the appellant. Respondent No.2, the insurer is directed to deposit remaining part of the compensation before the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from this day.