ORDER S.K. Gangele, J. 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 20.10.2008 passed by Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 43/2007 for enhancement of compensation. 2. Deceased Kalia alias Kalicharan had been working as Cleaner on the truck bearing registration No. MP-06/E-4434. When he had been going in the truck, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck, he fell down and received serious injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and subsequently he died. A report of the accident was lodged at Police Station Bowenpalli district Hyderabad on 17.8.2006. The police registered an offence against driver of the truck under Sections 279 and 337 IPC vide Crime No. 305/2006. 3. Subsequently, the claimants, who are father, mother and grandmother of the deceased, filed a claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal, Morena claiming total compensation of Rs. 20,80,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was caused by truck bearing registration No. MP-06/E-4434 and in the aforesaid accident deceased died. The offending truck was insured by the Insurance Company, Respondent No. 3. After appreciation of evidence on record of the case the Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,19,000/-. 4. Learned Counsel for Appellants-claimants has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error of law in deducting 2/3rd income as personal expenses of the deceased though in calculating dependency in fatal accident claims only 1/3rd amount can be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself because the claim application has been filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Claims Tribunal has awarded a less compensation. Contrary to this learned Counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has passed a just and proper compensation and in deciding the application for compensation the Claims Tribunal has correctly fixed the dependency of the claimants. The Insurance Company has not disputed the fact that the offending vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company at the time of accident. Hence, the appeal is being decided with regard to quantum of compensation. 5. It is an admitted fact that the claimants are father, mother and grandmother of the deceased. The Insurance Company has not disputed the fact that the offending vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company at the time of accident. Hence, the appeal is being decided with regard to quantum of compensation. 5. It is an admitted fact that the claimants are father, mother and grandmother of the deceased. As per pleadings of the claimants the deceased had been working as a Cleaner over the truck and they were dependents on the income of deceased. The Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record of the case fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,900/ per month and thus the annual income comes at Rs. 34,800/-, which the Claims Tribunal fixed at Rs. 35,000/- per annum. In my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has fixed a proper income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal further held that because the deceased was a bachelor hence he had been spending 2/3rd of his income on his own maintenance and fixed the dependency at 1/3rd. In second Schedule for compensation for third party fatal accident cases claim under Section 163A of the Act, it has been mentioned that the amount of compensation so arriveed at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses. The relevant note is as under: Note: The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. 6. From the aforesaid note it is clear that in determining the amount of compensation in fatal accident claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act the claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. In the aforesaid schedule there is no mention of the fact that what would have been happened if the victim a bachelor. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under in the case of Ramesh Singh and Anr. v. Satbir Singh and Anr. [ 2008 ACJ 814 ], with regard to calculation of compensation in the case of fatal accident of bachelor in the claim applications filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act: 5. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under in the case of Ramesh Singh and Anr. v. Satbir Singh and Anr. [ 2008 ACJ 814 ], with regard to calculation of compensation in the case of fatal accident of bachelor in the claim applications filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act: 5. The learned Counsel relying on the Second Schedule to the Act contended that the deceased being about 22 years of age, a multiplier of 16 or 17 should have been granted. It is undoubtedly true that Section 163 was brought on the statute book to shorten the period of litigation. The burden to prove negligence or fault on the part of driver and other allied burdens under Section 140 or 166 were really cumbersome and time-consuming. Therefore, as a part of social justice, a system was introduced via Section 163A wherein such burden was avoided and thereby a speedy remedy was provided. The Schedule provided has been threadbarely discussed in various pronouncements including Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2004 ACJ 934 (SC)], second Schedule is to be used not only referring to age of victim but also other factors relevant therefor. Complicated questions of facts and law arising in accident cases cannot be answered all times by relying on mathematical equations. In fact in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [ 1996 ACJ 831 (SC)], Ahmedi J. (as the Chief Justice then was) has pointed out the shortcomings in the said Schedule and has held that the Schedule can only be used as a guide. It was also held that selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. If a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants. That precisely has happended in this case. Age of the parents was held as a relevant factor in case of minor's death in recent decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim [ 2007 ACJ 2816 (SC)]. In our considered opinion, the Courts below rightly struck the said balance. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Ors. Age of the parents was held as a relevant factor in case of minor's death in recent decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim [ 2007 ACJ 2816 (SC)]. In our considered opinion, the Courts below rightly struck the said balance. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Ors. [2001 (2) TAC 312 (SC)], has considered the provisions of Section 163 in detail and held as under: 8. From the provisions quoted above, it appears that no specific mention is made that remedy provided under Section 163A is in addition or in the alternative to the determination of compensation on the basis of fault liability. Section 163A was not there in the original Act of 1988. It was inserted by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14th November, 1994. Hence, for arriving at the proper conclusion, it would be necessary to cull out legislative intent by referring to the legislative history as well as Objects and Reasons for inserting the said provision. * * * * * * * * * 15. In this context if we refer to the Review Committee's Report, the reason for enacting Section 163A is to give earliest relief to the victims of the motor vehicle accidents. The committee observed that determination of cases takes long time and, therefore, under a system of structural compensation, the compensation that is payable for different classes of cases depending upon the age of the deceased the monthly income at the time of death, the earning potential in the case of minor, loss of income on account of loss of limb etc. can be notified and the affected party can then have option of their accepting lump sum compensation under the scheme of structural compensation or of pursuing his claim through the normal channels. The report of the Review Committee was considered by the State Governments and comments were notified. Thereafter, the Transport Development Council made suggestions for providing adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into long drawn procedure. As per the Objects and Reasons, it is a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income which is more liberal and rational. Thereafter, the Transport Development Council made suggestions for providing adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into long drawn procedure. As per the Objects and Reasons, it is a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income which is more liberal and rational. On the basis of the said recommendation after considering the report of the Transport Development Council, the Bill was introduced with "a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income which is more liberal and notional", i.e., Section 163A. It is also apparent that compensation payable under Section 163A is almost based on relevant criteria for determining the compensation such as annual income, age of the victim and multiplier to be applied. In addition to the figure which is arrived at on the basis of said criteria, schedule also provides that amount of compensation shall not be less than Rs. 50,000/-. It provides for fixed amount of general damage in case of death such as (1) Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses; (2) Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium of beneficiary is the spouse; (3) Rs. 2,400/- for loss of estate; (4) for medical expenses supported by the bills, voucher not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-. Similarly, for disability in non-fatal accident para 5 of the schedule provides for determination of compensation on the basis of permanent disability. Para 6 provides for notional income for those who had no income prior to accident at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. There is also provision for reduction of 1/3rd amount of compensation on the assumption that the victim would have incurred the said amount towards maintaining himself had he been alive. The purpose of this section and the Second Schedule is to avoid long drawn litigation and delay in payment of compensation to the victims or his heirs who are in dire need of relief. If such affected claimant opts for accepting the lump sum compensation based on structured formula, he would get relief at the earliest. It also gives vital advantage of not pleading or establishing any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the offending vehicle or vehicles. If such affected claimant opts for accepting the lump sum compensation based on structured formula, he would get relief at the earliest. It also gives vital advantage of not pleading or establishing any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the offending vehicle or vehicles. This no-fault liability appears to have been introduced on the basis of the suggestion of the Law Commission to the effect that the expanding notions of social security and social justice envisage that liability to pay compensation must be "no fault liability" and as observed by this Court in Ramanbhai's case (supra), "in order to meet to some extent the responsibility of the society to the deaths and injuries caused in roads accidents". However, this benefit can be availed of by the claimant only by restricting his claim on the basis of income at a slab of Rs. 40,000/- which is the highest slab in the Second Schedule which indicates that the Legislature wanted to give benefit of no-fault liability to a certain limit. This would clearly indicate that the scheme is in alternative to the determination of compensation on fault basis under the Act. The object underlying the said amendment is to pay compensation without there being any long drawn litigation on a predetermined formula, which is known as structured formula basis which itself is based on relevant criteria for determining compensation and the procedure of paying compensation after determining the fault is done away. Compensation amount is paid without pleading or proof of fault, on the principle of social justice as a social security measure because of ever increasing motor vehicles accidents in a fast moving society. Further, the law before insertion of Section 163 A was giving limited benefit to the extent provided under Section 140 for no-fault liability and determination of compensation amount on default liability was taking long time. That mischief is sought to be remedied by introducing Section 163A and the disease of delay is sought to be cured to a large extent by affording benefit to the victims on structured formula basis. Further, if the question of determining compenation on fault liability is kept alive it would result in additional litigation and complications in case claimants fail to establish liability of the owner of the defaulting vehicles. 9. The original Section 163A is, as under, introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 163A. Further, if the question of determining compenation on fault liability is kept alive it would result in additional litigation and complications in case claimants fail to establish liability of the owner of the defaulting vehicles. 9. The original Section 163A is, as under, introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 163A. 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. (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. Looking to the aforesaid principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, in my opinion, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act Court has to follow, which would be just and proper, to deduct 1/3rd as personal expenses incurred by the deceased from the total earning of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 35,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd the total loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased comes to Rs. 23,334/-. After considering the age of mother of the deceased the Claims Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16. In my opinion, it is just and proper. After applying the aforesaid multiplier total loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased comes to (Rs. 23,344/- x 16)= Rs. 3,73,344/-. 23,334/-. After considering the age of mother of the deceased the Claims Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16. In my opinion, it is just and proper. After applying the aforesaid multiplier total loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased comes to (Rs. 23,344/- x 16)= Rs. 3,73,344/-. Besides this, the claimants are also entitled to get Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand only) as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act on other heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 3,82,344/- (Rupees Three lacs eighty two thousands three hundred forty four only). The Claims Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,19,000/-. Hence the claimants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,63,344/- (Rupees One lac sixty three thousands three hundred forty four only). 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed to the extent that claimants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,63,344/- (Rupees One lac sixty three thousand three hundred forty four only) which shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing claim application till realisation. 50% of the amount be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years in the name of Appellants No. 1 and 2. Rest of the terms and conditions shall be the same as fixed by the Claims Tribunal. No order as to cost.