JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 10-7-2002, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nellore, (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the petition O.P.No.690 of 1996, filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), awarding a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as was claimed in the O.P., for the death of one Shaik Basha Mohiddin (for brevity "the deceased), in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23-5-1996, the National Insurance Company Limited has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal; while the petitioners in the O.P., have filed the Cross-objections, seeking enhancement. 3. The application C.M.P.No.15822 of 2004, which is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission of this Court to amend the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/claimed in the O.P., to Rs.5,00,000/-, is hereby ordered. 4. Appellant is the National Insurance Company Limited, Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the claimants and Respondent No.7 is the owner of Jeep bearing Registration No. AAE-482, in the O.P., before the Tribunal. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant, Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Respondent No.7 will be referred to as “the insurer”, “the claimants” and “the insured”, respectively. 6. Before the Tribunal, the insured and the insurer have filed separate counters, denying the averments in the O.P. 7. Basing on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:- (1) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AAE-482 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 8. (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 8. The Tribunal, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, on issue No.1 held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, belonging to the insured; on issue No.2 held that the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, as was claimed in the O.P., and eventually awarded the said amount, with costs and interest at 12% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, fastening the liability on the insured and the insurer jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 9. The details as regards the manner in which the accident had occurred etc., are not in dispute (and hence), they are not being referred to. 10. The only ground urged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is with regard to quantification of the compensation. 11. In this regard, the law is well settled to the effect that in order to challenge the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer must necessarily obtain permission, as envisaged under Section 170 of the Act. If no such permission is obtained, the obligation on the part of the insurer is only to the limited extent, as specified under Section 149 of the Act. 12. In the instant case, admittedly, no such permission has been obtained by the insurer for challenging the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. 13. Coming to the Cross-objections, filed by the claimants, it appears from the impugned order that the Tribunal, having regard to the age of the deceased i.e., 53 years, at the time of accident, has applied the multiplier ‘11’, as envisaged under II schedule of Section 163-A of the Act and awarded compensation accordingly. 14. 13. Coming to the Cross-objections, filed by the claimants, it appears from the impugned order that the Tribunal, having regard to the age of the deceased i.e., 53 years, at the time of accident, has applied the multiplier ‘11’, as envisaged under II schedule of Section 163-A of the Act and awarded compensation accordingly. 14. Here, as a matter of fact, it is to be seen that the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion, basing on various factors viz., the salary and the age of the deceased, at the time of accident etc., that the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.4,87,680/- towards compensation, but, however, restricted the same to Rs.3,00,000/-, as was originally claimed by the claimants. 15. The learned counsel for the cross-objectors (claimants) contends firstly that the claimants are entitled to compensation by applying the appropriate multiplier ‘11’ as per II Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act and secondly after the amendment of 1994, the multiplier prescribed in the case of Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif had almost gone into oblivion and it is only the multiplier under Section 163-A of the Act, which grounds (sic. governs) the field to award ‘just and reasonable’ compensation. 16. So far as the first contention is concerned, no doubt, the table given under Section 163-A of the Act can be applied in appropriate cases in order to render justice to the parties and to arrive at just compensation in the claims made under Section 163-A of the Act. 17. So far as the second contention is concerned, the same cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the table prescribed in the case of Bhagwan Das (1 supra) has neither been interfered with nor has been altered, at any point of time, till now, as has to become superfluous. On the other hand, the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases the table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act can be applied in order to meet the ends of justice, but not necessarily as a principle. 18. In other words, the table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act can be invoked only as a guiding factor while arriving at a ‘just’ compensation. 18. In other words, the table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act can be invoked only as a guiding factor while arriving at a ‘just’ compensation. There is no express provision under the Act to the effect that the table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act can also be made applicable in cases where the claims are made both under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act. The scope of enquiry under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act are explicitly different with each other. Precisely that is the reason why both the provisions have been legislated independent to each other and a table also had been made under Section 163-A of the Act. But, no such table indicating the appropriate multiplier has been made under Section 166 of the Act specially. However, by judicial pronouncement, the table prescribed in the case of Bhagwan Das (1 supra) is being taken as the appropriate table so far as the claims made under Section 166 of the Act are concerned. 19. However, it is for the Courts to decide as to when and where, and for what reasons, the table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act has not to be applied. In other words, that can be applied only in special cases with proper reasoning. 20. It is also not in dispute that though the table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act has been pointed out in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, so far no steps have been taken to correct the same. 21. Furthermore, the table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act is scientifically based. Therefore, to the extent possible, in cases where the claims are made under Section 166 of the Act, the application of table prescribed in Section 163-A of the Act, in my considered view, is not expedient. 22. Coming to the case on hand, obviously, by applying the multiplier ‘11’ under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation was arrived at 4,87,680/-, however, it has been restricted to Rs.3,00,000/-, as was originally claimed by the claimants. Therefore, I am of the view that the Cross-objections, filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation, are devoid of merits. 23. Coming to the case on hand, obviously, by applying the multiplier ‘11’ under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation was arrived at 4,87,680/-, however, it has been restricted to Rs.3,00,000/-, as was originally claimed by the claimants. Therefore, I am of the view that the Cross-objections, filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation, are devoid of merits. 23. However, at this length of time, having regard to the facts and circumstances, especially the family condition of the deceased, I do not propose to interfere with the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal, treating the same as just and reasonable. 24. For the foregoing reasons, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross objections are liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross objections are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.