JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard, learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, appearing on behalf of appellant Insurance Company. The appellant has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kutch @ Bhuj ('the Claims Tribunal' for short) in M.A.C.P. No. 222 of 2007 decided on 25th September 2009. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,60,500/- with 9% interest as compensation in favour of respondents claimants. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati has filed present First Appeal challenging only Rs. 72,000/. That means, the appeal is restricted to the challenge of Rs. 72,000/-. Therefore, only one contention is raised before this Court by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has committed a gross error in relying upon Second Schedule r/w. Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short). He submitted that Second Schedule itself is found faulty by the Honourable Apex Court. Therefore, recently the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6999, referred the matter to the Larger Bench for deciding the question, whether Second Schedule, where multiplier specified has been taken to be guiding factor for calculation of amount of compensation even in case under Sec. 166 of the Act. In Trilokchandra's case, decided by the Honourable Apex Court, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 , as pointed out certain purported calculation mistakes in the Second Schedule. It, however, appears to the Honourable Apex Court that there is no mistake therein. The amount of compensation specified in the Second Schedule only is required to be paid, even if, a higher or lower amount can be said to be the quantum of compensation upon applying the multiplier system. Relevant discussion is made aforesaid decision in case of Reshma Kumari (supra) in Paras 38 to 45, which are quoted as under: "38. We have noticed the precedents operating in the field as also the rival contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties with a view to show that law is required to be laid down in clearer terms. The Second Schedule refers to Section 163A of the 1988 Act, which, as noticed hereinbefore, provides for quantum of compensation to a third party in case of fatal accident or injuries suffered. It provides for a table. The Second Schedule refers to Section 163A of the 1988 Act, which, as noticed hereinbefore, provides for quantum of compensation to a third party in case of fatal accident or injuries suffered. It provides for a table. It specifies the amount required to be paid to the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased in the case of fatal accident and the claimants in the case of injuries suffered by them depending upon his age and annual income as specified therein. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the multiplier specified in the second schedule should be taken to be a guide for calculation of amount of compensation payable in a case falling under Section 166 of the 1988 Act? 39. We have noticed hereinbefore that in Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra) and Abati Bezbaruah and the other cases following them multiplier specified in the Second Schedule has been taken to be guiding factor for calculation of the amount of compensation even in a case under Section 166 of the Act. However, in Shanti Pathak (supra) this Court advocated application of lesser multiplier, although no legal principle has been laid therein. 40. In Trilok Chandra (supra) this Court has pointed out certain purported calculation mistakes in the Second Schedule. It, however, appears to us that there is no mistake therein. Amount of compensation specified in the Second Schedule only is required to be paid even if a higher or lower amount can be said to be the quantum of compensation upon applying the multiplier system. 41. Section 163A of the 1988 Act does not speak of application of any multiplier. Even the Second Schedule, so far as the same applies to fatal accident, does not say so. The multiplier, in terms of the Second Schedule, is required to be applied in a case of disability in non fatal accident. Consideration for payment of compensation in the case of death in a ‘no fault liability' case vis-a-vis the amount of compensation payable in a case of permanent total disability and permanent partial disability in terms of the Second Schedule is to be applied by different norms. Consideration for payment of compensation in the case of death in a ‘no fault liability' case vis-a-vis the amount of compensation payable in a case of permanent total disability and permanent partial disability in terms of the Second Schedule is to be applied by different norms. Whereas in the case of fatal accident the amount specified in the Second Schedule depending upon the age and income of the deceased is required to be paid where for the multiplier is not to be applied at all but in a case involving permanent total disability or permanent partial disability the amount of compensation payable is required to be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age of the injured as on the date of determining the compensation and in the case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) of the Second Schedule. 42. The Parliament in its wisdom thought to provide for a higher amount of compensation in case of permanent total disablement and proportionate amount of compensation in case of permanent partial disablement depending upon the percentage of disability. 43. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule, although in a given case, may be taken to be a guide but the same is not decisive. To our mind, although a probable amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule in the event the age of victim is 17 or 20 years and his annual income is Rs. 40,000/-, his heirs/legal representatives is to receive a sum of Rs. 7,60,000/-, however, if an application for grant of compensation is filed in terms of Section 166 of the 1988 Act that much amount may not be paid, although in the former case the amount of compensation is to be determined on the basis of ‘no fault liability' and in the later on ‘fault liability' In the aforementioned situation the Courts, we opine, are required to lay down certain principles. 44. We are not unmindful of the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Act 54 of 1994 for introducing Section 163A so as to provide for a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational. 44. We are not unmindful of the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Act 54 of 1994 for introducing Section 163A so as to provide for a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational. That may be so, but it defies logic as to why in a similar situation, the injured claimant or his heirs/legal representatives, in the case of death, on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of a motor vehicle would get a lesser amount than the one specified in the Second Schedule. The Courts, in our opinion, should also bear that factor in mind. 45. Having regard to divergence of opinion and this aspect of the matter having not been considered in the earlier decisions, particularly in the absence of any clarification from the Parliament despite the recommendations made by this Court in Trilok Chandra (supra), the issue, in our opinion, shall be decided by a Larger Bench. It is directed accordingly." 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati also relied upon a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumallamma, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 7434. It is necessary to note that both the decisions as referred above have been decided by the same Division Bench of the Honourable Apex Court on the same day i.e. 23rd July 2009. The relevant discussion is made in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) in Paras 7 to 12, which are quoted as under : "7. Section 163A was inserted by Act No.54 of 1994 as a special measure to ameliorate the difficulties of the family members of a deceased who died in use of a motor vehicle. It contains a non-obstante clause. It makes the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorized insurer liable to pay in the case of death, the amount of compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule to his legal heirs. The Second Schedule provides for the amount of compensation for third party Fatal Accident/Injury Cases Claims. It provides for the age of the victim and also provides for the multiplier for arriving at the amount of compensation which became payable to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased depending upon his annual income. The Second Schedule provides for the amount of compensation for third party Fatal Accident/Injury Cases Claims. It provides for the age of the victim and also provides for the multiplier for arriving at the amount of compensation which became payable to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased depending upon his annual income. The Second Schedule furthermore provides that in a case of fatal accident, the amount of claim shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred upon himself, had he been alive. It provides for the amount of minimum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. It furthermore provides for payment of general damages as specified in Note 3 thereof. 8. Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in nonfatal accidents as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs. 7,60,000/-. As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities. 9. The Parliament in laying down the amount of compensation in the Second Schedule, as indicated hereinbefore, in its wisdom, provided for payment of some amount which should be treated to be the minimum. It took into consideration the fact that a person's potentiality to earn is highest when he is aged between 25 and 30 years and that is why in case of permanent disability multiplier of 18 has been specified. The very fact that even if the deceased had an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month, he being aged about 15 years would receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- but if his income was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, his legal heirs and representatives would receive a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The very fact that even if the deceased had an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month, he being aged about 15 years would receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- but if his income was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, his legal heirs and representatives would receive a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In the case of any non-earning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 10. The deceased was running a hotel. He was, therefore, having some income. No document, however, was produced in support of the statement of the claimant (the mother of the deceased) that his income was 3,300/- per month. On what basis such a claim was made has not been disclosed. No document was produced. The deceased was not an income tax payee. Income of Rs. 3,300/- might have been chosen so as not to cross the deadline of income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum. 11. Although both the Tribunal as also the High Court has accepted the same, in our opinion, the income of the deceased should be determined at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Applying the said principle, the claimant would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,22,000/-. From that sum, one third should be deducted. 12. In view of the aforementioned finding, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to take into consideration, the decisions cited at the bar suggesting that in a case of death of an unmarried person and wherein the claimants are the parents of the deceased, the age of the deceased shall be irrelevant factor for applying the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule." 4. Relying upon aforesaid two decisions, learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati raised contention that the Claims Tribunal has considered Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, which yearly comes to Rs. 36,000/- and considering age of the deceased 19 years, multiplier of 16 has been applied. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in relying upon annual income of Rs. 36,000/- and considered Rs. 6,84,000/- being amount of compensation and after deduction of 1/3rd amount, which comes to Rs. 4,60,500/-, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The total amount of compensation available as per Second Schedule to the claimant when yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000/- then it comes to Rs. 6,84,000/- after deducting 1/3rd amount Rs. 36,000/- and considered Rs. 6,84,000/- being amount of compensation and after deduction of 1/3rd amount, which comes to Rs. 4,60,500/-, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The total amount of compensation available as per Second Schedule to the claimant when yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000/- then it comes to Rs. 6,84,000/- after deducting 1/3rd amount Rs. 2,28,000/- remaining amount comes to Rs. 4,56,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded towards Funeral Expenses and Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded towards Loss of Estate. The total amount comes to Rs. 4,60,500/-. But, learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that such calculation is not correct and Second Schedule has been found by the Honourable Apex Court erroneous. Therefore, according to his calculation from Rs. 3,000/- monthly income if 1/3rd is deducted then it comes to Rs. 2,000/- and yearly income comes to Rs. 24,000/- and then applying a multiplier of 16 at an age of 19 years, it comes to Rs. 3,84,000/- towards Loss of Dependency and thereafter, Rs. 2,500/- towards Loss of Estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, in all comes to Rs. 3,88,500/- and not Rs. 4,60,500/-. Therefore, there is an excess of Rs. 72,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal, which found apparently a calculation error while considering Second Schedule r/w. Section 163A of the Act. Except this, no other submission has been made by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati. 5. I have considered submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati and I have also considered both decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as relied by the learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati as referred above. In the case of Gurumallamma, the Honourable Apex Court has clearly observed that, "Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in nonfatal accidents as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs. 7,60,000/-. As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. 3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs. 7,60,000/-. As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities." Similarly, in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) in Para 38, the Honourable Apex Court has observed that, "Second Schedule refers to Sec. 163A of the 1988 Act, which as noticed hereinbefore, provides for quantum of compensation to third party in case of fatal accidents or injuries suffered. It provides for a table. It specifies the amount requires to be paid to legal heirs/- representatives of the deceased in the case of fatal accident and the claims in the case of injuries suffered by them depending upon his age and annual income as specified therein". 5.1 Thereafter, in Para 40 of the said decision, the Honourable Apex Court has observed that, "It, however, appears to us that there is no mistake therein. Amount of compensation specified in the Second Schedule only is required to be paid even if a higher or lower amount can be said to be the quantum of compensation upon applying the multiplier system". In the same decision, in Para 41, the Honourable Apex Court has observed that, "The multiplier, in terms of the Second Schedule, is required to be applied in a case of disability in nonfatal accident. Consideration for payment of compensation in the case of death in a 'no fault liability' case vis-a-vis the amount of compensation payable in a case of permanent total disability and permanent partial disability in terms of Second Schedule is to be applied by different norms. Consideration for payment of compensation in the case of death in a 'no fault liability' case vis-a-vis the amount of compensation payable in a case of permanent total disability and permanent partial disability in terms of Second Schedule is to be applied by different norms. Whereas, in the case of fatal accident the amount specified in the Second Schedule depending upon the age and income of the deceased is required to be paid where for the multiplier is not to be applied at all but in a case involving permanent total disability or permanent partial disability the amount of compensation payable is required to be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age of the injured as on the date of determining the compensation and in case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation, which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) of the Second Schedule". 6. In view of the above observations made in both the cases by the same Division Bench of the Honourable Apex Court deciding the question on 23rd July 2009, it is made clear that in case of fatal accident, multiplier system is not to be applied but only annual income of deceased r/w. compensation in case of death between a particular age, the figure, which has been given against that column is only to be taken into account. Therefore, in this case, considering Rs. 36,000/- as annual income and age of deceased as 19 years, a multiplier of 16 is not to be applied but only to consider the amount of compensation in case of death, which has been mention below annual income of Rs. 36,000/-, which comes to Rs. 6,84,000/-, which has been rightly arrived at by the Claims Tribunal, after proper reading and understanding the Second Schedule and thereafter, it requires to be deducted 1/3rd amount in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Therefore, according to my opinion, Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted the method by not applying the multiplier but considering the annual income of the deceased and compensation in case of death, which comes to, considering the age of 19 years, Rs. Therefore, according to my opinion, Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted the method by not applying the multiplier but considering the annual income of the deceased and compensation in case of death, which comes to, considering the age of 19 years, Rs. 6,84,000/- has been properly assessed and thereafter, rightly deducted 1/3rd amount for doing so, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. 7. In view of both the above decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, according to my opinion, the Honourable Apex Court has made it clear in both the cases that multiplier method is to be applied in case of injury means nonfatal accident but in case of fatal accident, multiplier method of Second Schedule is not applicable but Claims Tribunal has to consider only annual income of the deceased and the age of deceased and amount of compensation in case of death given in Second Schedule is to be considered. 8. Therefore, submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati in Ground ‘D' of the Appeal Memo that after deducting 1/3rd amount from the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-, a multiplier of 16 has been applied, which cannot be made applicable in case of death. Therefore, the contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati in respect of applicability of Second Schedule in case of death is confusing himself and also creating confusion before this Court and without going into entire decisions in both the cases cannot be accepted as in both decisions it has been made clear that multiplier method of Second Schedule r/w. Sec. 163A is applicable only in case of injury only and it is irrelevant and not applicable such multiplier method in case of death and in such circumstances, in case of death Claims Tribunal has to consider the annual income of deceased, age of deceased and compensation workout in the Second Schedule in case of death is to be considered and thereafter to deduct 1/3rd amount, whatever amount come that is the amount of compensation available to the claimant. That method has been rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal and accordingly, compensation has been rightly worked out, for that, according to my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error, which requires any interference by this Court. 8.1 The contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. That method has been rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal and accordingly, compensation has been rightly worked out, for that, according to my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error, which requires any interference by this Court. 8.1 The contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati before this Court that the Claims Tribunal has committed error in calculation of compensation. He relied upon multiplier of 16. Considering age of deceased, it comes within 15 to 20 years. He relied upon decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) that said question has been referred to the Larger Bench, which is not correct. The question, which has been referred by the Honourable Apex Court is that, when claimant files application under Sec. 166 to be decided on 'fault liability', in such case, claimant may not get same amount of compensation which available to claimant if application is filed under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, a large question, which has been posed by the Honourable Apex Court in Paras 43 and 44 of the said judgment, are quoted as under, which give clear picture that which question has been referred to the Larger Bench. 43. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule, although in a given case, may be taken to be a guide but the same is not decisive. To our mind, although a probable amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule in the event the age of victim is 17 or 20 years and his annual income is Rs. 40,000/-, his heirs/legal representatives is to receive a sum of Rs. 7,60,000/-, however, if an application for grant of compensation is filed in terms of Section 166 of the 1988 Act that much amount may not be paid, although in the former case the amount of compensation is to be determined on the basis of ‘no fault liability' and in the later on ‘fault liability' In the aforementioned situation the Courts, we opine, are required to lay down certain principles. 44. We are not unmindful of the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Act 54 of 1994 for introducing Section 163A so as to provide for a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational. 44. We are not unmindful of the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Act 54 of 1994 for introducing Section 163A so as to provide for a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational. That may be so, but it defies logic as to why in a similar situation, the injured claimant or his heirs/legal representatives, in the case of death, on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of a motor vehicle would get a lesser amount than the one specified in the Second Schedule. The Courts, in our opinion, should also bear that factor in mind. 8.2 According to the Honourable Apex Court, Sec. 163A r/w. Second Schedule, which is more liberal and rational than why in a similar situation, the injured claimant or his legal heirs/representatives in the case of death on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of a motor vehicle would get a lesser amount than one specified in the Second Schedule. The Court, in our opinion, should also bear that factor in mind. So, this question referred to the Larger Bench by the Honourable Apex Court. But question which has been raised before this Court is not referred to the Larger Bench by the Honourable Apex Court. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted because in the facts of the present case, application filed by claimant under Sec. 163A of the Act and considering age of deceased 19 years and annual income Rs. 36,000/-, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6,84,000/- then to deduct 1/3rd amount then amount comes to Rs. 4,56,000/-. In such circumstances, the calculation suggested by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati that instead of that annual income of deceased is to be considered Rs. 24,000/- and to apply 16 multipliers. That contention of Mr. Nanavati is totally contrary to Sec. 163A r/w. Second Schedule, because Second Schedule having a particular condition in Item No. 5, which is quoted as under: "5. Disability in non-fatal accidents: The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of nonfatal accidents: Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks. Disability in non-fatal accidents: The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of nonfatal accidents: Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks. PLUS either of the following: (a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or (b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above. Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923." 8.3 So, multiplier is applicable to in case of disability in nonfatal accident only and multiplier is not applicable in case of fatal accident. Not only that but looking to annual income of deceased, in case of fatal accident against respective age of deceased whatever compensation available to claimant in case of death considering annual income that amount of compensation is to be worked out first and then to deduct 1/3rd from that amount and thereafter, whatever amount comes it considered to be a dependency of claimant. In Sec. 163A question of considering future prospective amount does not arise. Not only that in case of deceased being an unmarried, age of parents or claimant is not necessary to consider but strictly to calculate the compensation or to workout it, consider Second Schedule itself. Therefore, calculation suggested by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati in Ground 'D' of Appeal Memo cannot be accepted because such theory is not acceptable in light of Second Schedule as well as both decisions of Honourable Apex Court as referred above also held it that in case of fatal accident question of multiplier is not applicable but it applies only in case of disability in nonfatal accident and in case of death, compensation is to be worked out on annual income of deceased considering amount of compensation given against column of age is to be worked out and thereafter, to deduct 1/3rd amount of expenses. This is the correct and legal formula recognized by statutory provisions. Therefore, confusion created by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted. This is the correct and legal formula recognized by statutory provisions. Therefore, confusion created by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted. Though, law and Sec. 163A r/w. Second Schedule are very clear, there is no ambiguity at all so which require to refer such question to the Larger Bench by the Honourable Apex Court. In fact, this question is not referred by Honourable Apex Court in case of Reshma Kumari. 9. Therefore, contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted. Hence, rejected. There is no substance in the First Appeal. Therefore, the present First Appeal is dismissed. 9.1 As the main First Appeal is dismissed, the Civil Application is also required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.