JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—U.P.S.R.T.C. (defendant/appellant) has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.7.09 passed by the Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T. Court No. 5 Itawa in M.A.C.P. No. 128/2008, Raghuraj Singh and another v. U.P.S.R.T.C. by which the claim petition of Raghuraj Singh and another filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Raghuraj Singh and his wife Smt. Manorma filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a compensation of Rs. 234500/- for the death of their daughter Kumari Sarita in a motor accident. It was alleged in the petition that on 1.2.2008 Kumari Sarita was returning from the school to her house and when she was standing at the road side on the National Highway No. 2, Itawa, Kanpur road, near village Saraijalal, at about 12.45 p.m. a roadways bus No. UP79-4459 came from Itawa side. The bus was being driven by its driver at a very fast speed and in a careless manner. The driver dashed the bus against Kumari Sarita, who sustained grievous injury and died at the spot. 3. A First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station Ikdil, District Itawa by one Ramdas. The case was registered at crime No. 18/08 for the offences under Sections 279, 338, 304-A, I.P.C.. It was further alleged in the petition that at the time of death Kumari Sarita was ten years of age and was studying in class 5th. 4. The opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C filed its written statement and alleged that the aforesaid accident did not take place with the said bus. On 1.2.08 the bus had departed from Itawa at 11 a.m. and had reached Oraiya at 1.30 p.m. and at the time of alleged accident, that is at 12.45 p.m., the bus was near the place Ajitmal. 5. On the pleadings of the aparties the learned Tribunal framed issue No. 1 as to whether the accident in question took place on 1.2.08 at 12.45 p.m. near village Saraijalal and due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. UP 79- 4459 death of Kumari Sarita was caused. Issue No. 2 was framed with regard to the compensation to which the claimants were entitled. 6. Issue No. 2 was framed with regard to the compensation to which the claimants were entitled. 6. The learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence of the claimants as well as of the opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C came to the conclusion that Kumari Sarita was hit by aforesaid bus and died in this accident. The Tribunal then allowed the compensation amounting to Rs. 154500/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 7. In this appeal we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant namely, Sri Lalan Verma and have also perused the record as has been filed with the appeal. 8. The petition has been filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. “Section 163-A of the M.V.A. was inserted by Act 54 of 1994 by way of a social security scheme. It is needless to say that the said provision is a Code by itself. The said provision has been inserted to provide for a new predetermined structured formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income of the deceased or the person suffering permanent disablement. In view of the language used in said section there could be no manner of doubt that the said provision has an overriding effect as it contains a non obstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is liable to pay compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.[Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2009 (3) TAC 13 (SC)].” 9. Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act runs 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 respect6 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. 3. The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid section makes it clear that in a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimants are not required to plead or to establish that the death, 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. The only thing which has to be ascertained in the present case is as to whether the bus in question was involved in this accident or not. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding regarding the involvement of the bus in the accident without appreciating the evidence of the driver of the bus. He also argued that exorbitant amount has been granted as compensation although the age of the deceased Kumari Sarita was only 10 years. 12. To prove the involvement of the bus in question in the present accident the claimants have examined the eye-witness Ramdas, who had also lodged the FIR of the accident on 1.2.2008 at 1.20 p.m. that is just 35 minutes after the accident. He has stated on oath that at the time of accident he was present at the place of accident and was waiting for a vehicle. He saw that the driver of bus No. UP79-4459 came from Itawa side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the girl causing her immediate death. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing favorable to the opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C came out. He saw that the driver of bus No. UP79-4459 came from Itawa side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the girl causing her immediate death. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing favorable to the opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C came out. The Tribunal has specifically mentioned in the judgment that after the accident this witness Ramdas had lodged the report at the police station Ikdil only 35 minutes thereafter giving the number of the bus with which the accident was caused. There is no denial to this fact that at that time the bus was being driven by Jamaluddin. If the said bus was not involved in the accident there was no reason for Ramdas to involve the said bus by giving its number in the First Information Report which was lodged soon after the accident. It appears from the judgment of the lower Court that the opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C had examined the driver Jamaluddin who in his statement denied the accident but the Tribunal did not believe his testimony. The Tribunal observed that as per the statement of Jamaluddin he, on the date of accident, reached Oraiya bus stand at 1.30 p.m. but no documentary evidence was filed in this regard. The Tribunal also observed that on the date of accident the bus was being plied at the route at which the accident took place. Moreover after his alleged false implication Jamaluddin did not make any complaint to his department or to the S.S.P. or to the District Magistrate that he has been implicated falsely in this case and no accident took place with the bus which he was driving. The Tribunal also observed that the criminal case is pending against the driver Jamaluddin with regard to the present accident. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the bus in question was involved in this accident in which Kumari Sarita died. Considering the above observations the Tribunal concluded that the said bus was involved in that accident. We feel that in view of the evidence led by parties the Tribunal has rightly come to the above said conclusion. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the bus in question was involved in this accident in which Kumari Sarita died. Considering the above observations the Tribunal concluded that the said bus was involved in that accident. We feel that in view of the evidence led by parties the Tribunal has rightly come to the above said conclusion. It will also not be out of place to mention here that in the ‘grounds of appeal’ the appellant opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C has mentioned in ground No. 1 as under : “Because the Tribunal has illegally recorded the finding that the alleged accident occurred due to sole negligence of bus driver, while the accident was took place due to contributery negligence of the deceased Kumari Sarita.” 13. The above said assertion made in the ‘grounds of appeal’ establishes that it is admitted to the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C that the bus in question was involved in the accident and that as per the version of the U.P.S.R.T.C the deceased Kumari Sarita also contributed to the accident. Thus the involvement of bus in this accident is proved beyond doubt. 14. In view of the entire above discussion it is clear that the aforesaid bus was involved in the accident and the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in recording the finding in this regard. 15. Now comes the question of the amount of compensation. It has been proved on record that the deceased Kumari Sarita was about ten years of age and was studying in class vth. In Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act it has been mentioned in column-6 that in fatal accidents the notional income of non-earning persons shall be taken at Rs. 15000/- per annum. In the “Note” which has been appended after the table in Column-1 it has been mentioned that from the amount of compensation 1/3 shall be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. It has further been mentioned in the chart that in cases where the age of the victim is up to 15 years a multiplier of 15 will be adopted. In the present case the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as 15000/- per year and after deducting 1/3 towards the expenses of the victim the dependency of the claimants has been taken at Rs. 10000/- per annum. In the present case the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as 15000/- per year and after deducting 1/3 towards the expenses of the victim the dependency of the claimants has been taken at Rs. 10000/- per annum. The Tribunal after applying multiplier of 15 has calculated the amount of compensation as Rs. 1,50,000/-and to this compensation has been added an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased and Rs. 2500/- for the loss of estate as has been provided in Clause-3 of the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988. Thus the Tribunal has correctly assessed the amount of compensation as per the structured formula given in the Second Schedule. In these circumstances the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of Rs. 154500/- has illegally been awarded by the Tribunal, has no force and is rejected. 16. In view of the entire above discussion we are of the opinion that the appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. 17. However in the facts and circumstances of the case no order is being made for any cost. 18. The amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited by the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C at the time of filing of the appeal will be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the deposit to be made by the appellant as per the impugned award. ————