JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.1021 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court), Guntur, and the respondents are the petitioners and R1 in the said case. 2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application. 3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents, praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of unmarried 22 years old Tractor Mechanic in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 26.10.2008 at 11.30 PM. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 26.10.2008, the deceased was coming from Telagapalem village of Ponnur Mandal after dropping his friend at his house on the offending motor cycle, at about 11.30 p.m., while he was passing near Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, he dashed against the telephone poll situated on the left side of the road, fell down and sustained fatal injuries and he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur in 108 Ambulance, but died while undergoing treatment on that intervening night and police registered a case in Crime No.135 of 2008 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and investigated the case. The petitioners further pleaded that the deceased used to get Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family consisting of his father, brothers and sister. 5. The respondent No.1 remained set exparte. The second respondent filed a written statement contending that because of the negligent driving of the deceased the accident took place, hence, the petitioners are not entitled any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Sujuki motor cycle No.AP 07 K 8503? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, from whom? iii. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. On behalf of the second respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. 8. ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, from whom? iii. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. On behalf of the second respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle and in the said accident the deceased received fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/ Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 11. POINT:- The first petitioner himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked the certified copy of First Information Report as Ex.A1 and certified copy of Inquest Report as Ex.A2. On behalf of 2nd respondent/ appellant herein, their officer in the cadre of Assistant, is examined as RW1 and got marked the copy of Insurance policy as Ex.B1, letter dated 02.11.2009 issued by United India Insurance Company Limited as Ex.B2 and acknowledgment as Ex.B3. 12. Basing on the material on record, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the crime vehicle/ two-wheeler is involved in the accident and because of accident the deceased sustained fatal injuries, later succumbed to injuries. 13. The contention of the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the liability of Insurance Company does not arise as the deceased himself with his rash and negligent driving involved in the accident and died. Here the claim application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and involvement of the vehicle in the accident is sufficient. Here it is not a dispute that the crime vehicle/two-wheeler is involved in the accident. The Assistant of Insurance Company office is examined as RW1. Here the claim application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and involvement of the vehicle in the accident is sufficient. Here it is not a dispute that the crime vehicle/two-wheeler is involved in the accident. The Assistant of Insurance Company office is examined as RW1. As per his evidence the deceased took the motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 K 8503 from 1st respondent i.e., the owner of the motorcycle on 26.10.2008 and while returning from Telagapalem village of Ponnur Mandal after dropping his friend at his house on the offending motor cycle, on the way the deceased dashed his vehicle against the telephone poll, fell down and succumbed to injuries on the next day while taking treatment. 14. In order to prove the defence of the Insurance Company, the Assistant in 2nd respondent company is examined as RW1 and the copy of Insurance policy got marked as Ex.B1. As per the evidence of RW1 coupled with Ex.B1, the crime vehicle/ two wheeler is insured with insurance company and the policy is also in force by the date of accident. It is not a dispute that the First Information Report is registered against the rider of the two wheeler i.e., the deceased and the Inquest Report Ex.A2 clearly goes to show that the deceased died in a road accident. 15. The contention of the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the rider of the two-wheeler is not having any driving license. To that extent, no evidence is adduced by the Insurance Company and Insurance Company failed to examined the RTA authorities. Here as the application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, involvement of vehicle in an accident is sufficient and the death of the deceased in an accident is not disputed by the other side. 16. Section 140(4) of Motor Vehicles Act says that: “A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement”. 17. 17. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs., Ravishankar and Others, 1996 ACJ 258 , held in para 4 as follows: “It is no doubt true that if there is a case of breach of policy from a bare reading of the petition and/or the policy itself, the court can take notice of the fact. In the instant case, this will be decided by the trial court after recording evidence that whether the vehicle was transferred and the insurance company had agreed to or not to transfer the policy. For the purposes of Section 140, all such legal pleas are not to be considered. The court is called upon to see whether the vehicle was insured or not. In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thaglu Singh 1995 ACJ 248 (MP), it was contended before this court that the policy covered only 6 employees other than the driver and the deceased persons being gratuitous passengers were not covered. This court held that such a defence was not available to the insurance company in respect of application by claimants under Section 140. This court observed in the following words: The statutory scheme envisages that if there is a motor accident and death or permanent disablement results from such an accident, owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles involved shall be liable to pay the prescribed compensation without proof of negligence and irrespective of any contributory negligence of the deceased or the injured and the amount so paid has to be adjusted out of the compensation found due under the final award. There is no provision requiring the recipient of compensation of no fault liability to refund any part of the amount received at any stage. The legislative intent is to ensure that some succor reaches the victim or the dependents without going into the questions which may arise for consideration while passing the final award. If the vehicle is insured, naturally the liability would fall on the insurer; permitting the insurer at that stage to raise any defence other than that there is no insurance policy in force at the relevant time or to raise the statutory defences contemplated in the succeeding Chapter would be to frustrate the legislative object in introducing the concept of no fault liability. The insured is duly protected inasmuch as if ultimately in the final award the insurer is exonerated, the Tribunal can issue appropriate direction enabling the insurer to collect the same from the owner of the vehicle. This could be the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the peremptory language of Section 92-A of the 1939 Act or Section 140 of the 1988 Act”. 18. In the present case it is clear that the rider of the two-wheeler himself drove the crime vehicle and dashed the electric pole and himself fell down and received severe injuries, later he was succumbed to injuries. The claim is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, defences available to Insurance Company need not be enquired into before making it liable under no fault liability and claim under no fault liability cannot be defeated on the ground that the rider of the two-wheeler was at fault. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The quantum is not at all disputed by the Insurance company. The claim for compensation for death has to be disbursed immediately to the dependents of the deceased without causing any burden to the claimants to plead/ establish absence of negligence. Nature of enquiry contemplated under Section 140 is very limited. In order to sustain a claim under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, there is no necessity for the claimants to plead/ establish that the death was due to wrongful act. The only question to be considered by the Tribunal at that stage was whether the accident had occurred and whether it resulted to death. Question has to whether the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased/rider of two-wheeler is not a matter to be gone into by Tribunal. Therefore, certainly the claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company, as granted by the Tribunal. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal in its order dated 02.06.2010. 19. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.