Judgment Heard Sri D.S. Patni counsel for the appellant and Sri K.S. Boara counsel for the respondents. 2. Present appeal has been preferredagainst the judgment and award dated 30-72004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Champawat awarding a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 3. Briefly stated claimants respondents no. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of the death of Sri Devendra Singh in a motor vehicle accident on 27-1-2003 at 10.30 AM near Roadways workshop, Tanakpur. 4. According to the claimants deceased Devendra Singh was doing transport business at Tanakpur and was earning Rs. 7.000/- per month. On the fateful day the deceased was going to market by motorcycle No. UCU 559 belonging to his friend Sri Gaurav Gupta. As soon as he reached Pilibhit Chungi, a child suddenly crossed the road and in order to save the child he applied breaks of motorcycle and the deceased could not control the vehicle and fell down on the road. He sustained fatal injuries in the accident and while he was carrying to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries sustained. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 27,63,000/-. . 5. Sri Gaurav Gupta respondent no. 5 owner of the motorcycle submitted his written statement and admitted the assertions made in the claim petition. He has submitted that the deceased had a valid driving licence and he permitted him to take his motorcycle. All the documents of the motorcycle were valid and it was insured with United Insurance company Therefore, insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. 6. The appellant United India Insurance Company has filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition for want of knowledge. However, it has not been denied by the appellant that the vehicle was insured with it. 7. Opposite party Madan Singh also filed his written statement. He has submitted that in order to save a child the deceased applied breaks due to which motorcycle slipped on the road and hit the bicycle of the answering opposite party. He also sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He has not participated in the accident in any way. 8. To prove their case the claimants examined P.W. 1 Smt. Manpreet Kaur and P.W. 2 Sri Madan Singh. He also sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He has not participated in the accident in any way. 8. To prove their case the claimants examined P.W. 1 Smt. Manpreet Kaur and P.W. 2 Sri Madan Singh. The claimants also filed copy of F.I.R. Panchaytnama, postmortem examination report and driving licence of the deceased. The opposite party no. 1 owner of the motorcycle filed insurance cover note and registration certificate of the motorcycle. 9. The insurance company has filed survey report and terms and conditions of insurance policy. 10. On the basis of the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal has hold that the accident occurred due to slip of motorcycle on the road in order to save a child. He further held that the deceased Devendra Singh had valid driving licence and he was driving the vehicle with the permission of the owner. The vehicle was validly insured with the United India Insurance Company and the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 11. So far as the compensation is concerned the Claims Tribunal has held that there is no document to prove regarding the income of the deceased, therefore, compensation has been awarded on the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum after deducting 1/3 amount for self expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased Claims Tribunal selected the multiplier of 16 and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 x 16 = Rs. 1,60,000/- for loss of dependency. Further a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium. Thus a total sum of Rs. 1,67,000/ was awarded to the claimants as compensation along with pendent elite and future interest @ 9% per annum against the insurance company. 12. Feeling aggrieved the United India Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 13. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle and the accident occurred due to his own negligent and fault. Thus the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable and at the most the claimants may claim compensation under section 140 of the M.V. Act. 14. In the present case the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself. Thus the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable and at the most the claimants may claim compensation under section 140 of the M.V. Act. 14. In the present case the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself. According to the evidence on record he could not control the vehicle and slipped on the road in order to save a child who suddenly crossed the road. There is no allegation that some other vehicle has contributed in the accident in any way. Thus the claim petition was maintainable under section 163-A of the M V Act. 15. Section 163-A reads as under: 163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. 16. In the present case the owner of the vehicle has filed insurance cover note, which shows that the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant at the time of accident. The owner of the motorcycle also filed registration certificate of the vehicle and driving licence of the deceased. Thus in the present case the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation under Section 163-A of M.V.Act. 17. So far as the grant of compensation under Second Schedule of section 163-A of the MV.Act, is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the annual notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding his income. 17. So far as the grant of compensation under Second Schedule of section 163-A of the MV.Act, is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the annual notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding his income. After deducting of 113 amount in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, the annual dependency of the claimants has been calculated at Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal has held the i3ge of the deceased as 38 years and thus selected multiplier of 16. Thus, by multiplying the annual dependancy of Rs. 10,000/- by 16 the compensation was determined at Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 1,67,000/- has been awarded. 18. The claims Tribunal has not awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate as provided in the Second Schedule. However, no counter claim has been made by the claimants for this amount. 19. Thus I find that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in accordance with the provisions under the Second Schedule of section 163-A of MV Act. If the claimants or the Claims Tribunal has not mentioned Section 163-A , this technicality has no adverse effect on the right of the claimants. 20. Thus I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 21. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.