JUDGMENT : V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J. 1. MACMA.No. 2640 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.811 of 2011. 2. MACMA.No.2641 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.812 of 2011. 3. MACMA.No.2695 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.813 of 2011. 4. Smt.V.Durga, the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company in all these appeals and Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Rachamalla, the learned counsel for respondents/ claimants in all these appeals submitted their arguments. 5. In these appeals filed by the insurance company, the following questions have arisen for consideration: 1. In a claim preferred under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the injured/ legal representatives of the deceased, whether the insurance company is entitled to plead and prove that the accident was not out of rash or negligent act on part of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle but it was out of rash or negligent act of the injured or the deceased? 2. Whether triple riding of motorcycle by itself amounts to act of negligence or rashness and whether violation of law having occurred because of triple riding, the claim under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall fail? 6. The following aspects are to be noticed: - On 23.05.2011, Sri M.Kishore was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 37 AQ 4950. He was carrying two pillion riders, namely Sri M.Rathaiah and Sri M.Sekhar Babu. It was about 05.00 pm, the motorcycle was travelling from Vennadeni Village to Rentapalla Village. There was a lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TU 3131 stationed on the road on the wrong side. The motorcycle went and dashed the lorry. In the said accident, the driver of the motorcycle, Sri M. Kishore died. One of the pillion riders Sri M.Rathaiah also died. There was a lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TU 3131 stationed on the road on the wrong side. The motorcycle went and dashed the lorry. In the said accident, the driver of the motorcycle, Sri M. Kishore died. One of the pillion riders Sri M.Rathaiah also died. The other pillion rider, Sri M.Sekhar Babu suffered serious injuries all over his body. 7. The incident was informed to police and Sattenapalli Town Police Station registered Cr.No.97 of 2011. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid finding fault with the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TU 3131. 8. The injured Sri M.Sekhar Babu filed MVOP.No.811 of 2011 under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. The legal representatives of driver of the motorcycle Sri M.Kishore filed MVOP.No.812 of 2011 praying compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The legal representatives of deceased pillion rider Sri M.Rathaiah filed MVOP.No.813 of 2011 under section 163A of the motorcycle praying compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 9. In all these three claim petitions, the owner of the lorry and the insurer of the lorry were made respondents. The owner did not choose to contest. The insurance company raised its contest. 10. Learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Guntur settled the issues and recorded oral and documentary evidence led by both sides. After hearing arguments and after considering the material on record, it arrived at the conclusion that the claim was under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claimants have no legal need to plead and prove negligence on part of the other vehicle. It negatived the contention of insurance company that the driver of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident. 11. In MVOP.No.811 of 2011, it granted Rs.75,000/- as compensation and awarded 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and fastened liability on the owner of the lorry as well as insurer of the lorry. Insurance company assailed the said award in MACMA.No.2640 of 2013. In MVOP.No.812 of 2011, it granted Rs.2,79,000/- as compensation and awarded 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and fastened liability on the owner of the lorry as well as insurer of the lorry. Insurance company assailed the said award in MACMA.No.2641 of 2013. In MVOP.No.812 of 2011, it granted Rs.2,79,000/- as compensation and awarded 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and fastened liability on the owner of the lorry as well as insurer of the lorry. Insurance company assailed the said award in MACMA.No.2641 of 2013. In MVOP.No.813 of 2011, it granted Rs.2.79,000/- as compensation and awarded 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and fastened liability on the owner of the lorry as well as insurer of the lorry. Insurance company assailed the said award in MACMA.No.2695 of 2013. 12. The evidence led before the claims tribunal and the FIR and the charge sheet and the findings of the claims tribunal showed that at the material point of time on the motorcycle, three persons were going on and the lorry was stationed on the wrong side of the road and the motorcycle went and dashed it causing loss of two lives and loss of bodily integrity to one person. Learned counsel for insurance company contends that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle which is in violation of law and that triple riding led to the accident. A learned Judge of this court in Chakali Swaroopa Vs Mohd. Gouse , [ 2016 ACJ 383 (AP)] considered a similar contention raised on behalf of the insurance company and held that mere infraction of traffic laws and riding a two wheeler with three persons on it by itself is not a disentitling factor in claims arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 13. Learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company cited National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sinitha , [ 2011 (8) Supreme 301 ] stating that even in a claim petition filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is entitled to plead and prove total negligence or contributory negligence on part of other party. This court finds no merit in this contention. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sunil Kumar , [(2019) 12 SCC 398] overruled the above referred Sinitha’s case. The question that was referred to the larger Bench was “Whether in a claim proceeding under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is open for the insurer to raise defence/plea of negligence”. The question that was referred to the larger Bench was “Whether in a claim proceeding under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is open for the insurer to raise defence/plea of negligence”. In paragraph No.9 of the said Judgment, their Lordships answered it stating that in any proceeding under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on part of the victim. The legal reasoning given by their Lordships for such conclusion is that though section 140(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates the possibility of a defence that could be raised by the insurer about negligence on part of the claimant, the same could not be applied in view of the language employed in section 163A and the legal philosophy behind incorporation of section 163A. Their Lordships stated that in claims under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if insurer is permitted to raise the defence of negligence on par with a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would be self-contradictory and any such permission would defeat the very legislative intention in incorporation of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. In view of the principles of law, both the questions raised in these appeals are answered against the insurance company. This court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned awards. 15. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.