Judgment :- N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal filed by the appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 12/05/2005 passed in MVC No.1193/2003 by the District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), for enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has determined the compensation of Rs.2,41,900/- under different heads and awarded a sum of Rs.52,340/-, after deducting Rs.1,89,560/- awarded to the appellants by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with cost against the claim of the appellants for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Satish G. Pandit, in the road traffic accident. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are: The appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased Sri. Satish G. Pandit and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 163-A of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 29.8.2002 at about 9.30 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo 407 bearing No.KA.30.5699 near Sea Bird Area, Argha, Karavara. It is the further case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 38 years, hale and healthy, working as Supervisor at L &T Company, High Chip Bird Joint Venture, Karavara and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family and due to his untimely death they suffered lot as they have lost the earning member of the family. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, determined the compensation of Rs.2,41,900/- under different heads and awarded a sum of Rs.52,340/-, after deducting Rs.1,89,560/- awarded to the appellants by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation. 4. We have hard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for second respondent-Insurance Company. 5. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation. 4. We have hard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for second respondent-Insurance Company. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurer Sri. O. Mahesh, at the outset submitted that, the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is not maintainable and it is liable to be rejected at threshold on the ground that the appellants herein have received the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and there is a total bar to redress their grievance as they have not referred in the said petition that they have received the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, he submitted that entertaining this appeal and enhancing the quantum of compensation does not arise. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the appellants has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Further he submitted that, before the Tribunal the learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that they have received compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and contended that the petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, is maintainable, since the compensation under the W.C. Act was paid to them without there being any claim made by them. Further, he submitted that this specific contention of the Insurer has been duly considered by the Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd. reported in 2004 ACJ 934 and the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Yash Pal Sharma Vs. Giridhari Lal and others reported in 2003 ACJ 1434 wherein, it is held that, “if without making a claim, the claimant is given any amount under Workmen’s Compensation Act, there is nothing in Section 167 which would disentitle him from preferring a claim under Motor Vehicle Act”. Therefore, he submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel for the Insurer is liable to be rejected. 7. Therefore, he submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel for the Insurer is liable to be rejected. 7. In the light of the above submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and after critical evaluation of the material available on file, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, in fact, the above submission of the learned counsel for the Insurer had been considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Yashpalm Sharma Vs. Giridhari Lal and others reported in 2003 ACJ 1434 , and at paras 3 and 8 it is held that, “Bar of section 167 is only regarding making claim i.e. he is to make claim either under Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act: if without making a claim, the claimant is given any amount under Workmen’s Compensation Act, there is nothing in Section 167 which would disentitle him from preferring a claim under Motor Vehicles Act.” Further, it could be seen from the records that, except making submission, learned counsel for the Insurer has not placed any authenticated documents to show that claimants herein have filed a claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and this fact has been specifically observed by the Tribunal in its judgment and award. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said ground taken by the Insurer. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court (stated supra), there is no bar for the appellants to file claim petition under section 163-A of M.V. Act and therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Insurer and the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 8. However, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- per month for calculating loss of dependency and the same is on lower side and therefore, it needs to be modified. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 38 years, working as Supervisor at L&T Company, High Chip Sea Bird Joint Venture, Karavara and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 38 years, working as Supervisor at L&T Company, High Chip Sea Bird Joint Venture, Karavara and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Having regard to the age, occupation and since the accident was occurred in the year 2002, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. As per Schedule-II to Section 163-A of M.V. Act, if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of dependency since he was aged about 38 years. Out of which, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the net amount comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. Out of which, if Rs.1,89,560/- awarded by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation is deducted, the net compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,70,440/- and accordingly, it is awarded. 9. As per the said schedule, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and accordingly, it is awarded. In all, the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,79,940/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1193/2003 is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs.1,79,940/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation with interest, after deducting the amount deposited by it, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. Out of the compensation of Rs.1,79,940/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of each of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 till they attain majority. The appellant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on it for their welfare. A sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No.1 in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of five years renewable for another five years with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically. A sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No.1 in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of five years renewable for another five years with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically. The remaining sum of Rs.29,940/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No.1 immediately, on deposit by the Insurer. Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.