JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. On this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Insurer of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident coming up for consideration today, Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 - claimants submits and states before me that he is not in a position to defend the legality and correctness of the impugned Award in as much as the learned Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vesting in him under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and on that ground alone, the Award deserves to be set aside. Mr. Thakur, however, also submitted that because of the aforesaid patently technical defect in the Award, suffering as it does from the error of jurisdiction relating to Section 163-A of the Act, claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 be permitted to approach the Tribunal with a prayer for amendment of MAC Petition No. 95/2001 (having been originally filed under Section 163-A of the Act) to convert it into a regular claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, of course after reviving MAC Petition No. 95/2001. 2. A bare look at the impugned award dated 31st August, 2004 clearly suggests that the learned Tribunal indeed exceeded the jurisdiction, actually improperly exercised the jurisdiction, under Section 163-A of the Act because on the own showing of the claimants the annual income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/- and, therefore, a petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not at all maintainable. The ratio in the judgment of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda reported in AIR 2004 SC 2107 , is a clear pointer to the non-maintainability of a petition under Section 163-A of the Act where the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000/-. The following observations in the said judgment are apposite and I quote: 51. The Scheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set-off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set-off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000 or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society. 53. Although the Act is a beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered thereby. (See Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Ramanuja Match Industries (1985)ILLJ69SC ). 67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala [2001] 2 SCR 999 has correctly been decided. However, we do riot agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000 per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000 can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. 3. Since the Tribunal has improperly exercised the jurisdiction rendering the award invalid on that ground alone, perhaps the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 should not be punished for this error on the part of the Tribunal and in that light I find that the prayer of Mr. Thakur deserves to be considered objectively and granted in favour of the claimants. 4. Thakur deserves to be considered objectively and granted in favour of the claimants. 4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed, the impugned Award is set aside only on the technical ground that on the face of the Award it suffers from a patent error of law in as much as the Tribunal improperly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 163-A of the Act in passing the Award even though a petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable at the threshold because the income of the deceased, on the own showing of the claimants, as well as what was proved during the course of the evidence in the Tribunal, was more than Rs. 40,000/ - per annum. 5. Allowing the prayer of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4, 1 permit them to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal for converting the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act. For the limited purpose (and for no other purpose at all) of hearing and disposing of the said application for conversion, MAC Petition No. 95 of 2001 shall stand revived and restored to its original position. The Tribunal is directed to consider the said application for conversion, if filed by the claimants within six weeks from today, purely on its merits and dispose it of strictly in accordance with law. If the application is allowed MAC Petition No. 95/2001 shall be converted into one under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and taken up for disposal in accordance with law thereafter. If, however, the application for conversion is disallowed, the revival order of MAC Petition No. 95 of 2001 passed by me today shall cease to operate. 6. Whatever amount has been deposited by the petitioner in this Court in this case be returned to the petitioner with interest accrued uptil date thereupon. CMP No. 584/2004 7. In the view of the disposal of the main peition, the present application is also disposed of.