JUDGMENT K.N. Keshavanarayana. J.— This appeal is admitted for examination. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, we have heard the appeal on merits for disposal. 2. This appeal is by the Insurance Company questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 26.5.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7. Bangalore in MVC. No. 6497/2003. 3. The Respondents who are parents and unmarried sister of one H.A. Harsha, filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of the said Harsha in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.1.2003 as a result of lorry bearing registration No. MP 09-KB-2520 dashing against the motor cycle on which deceased was proceeding. In the claim petition, claimants contended that the deceased was earning more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal determined the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 42,000/- and by adopting multiplier of 18 in relation to the age of the deceased, and by deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards the personal expenses of deceased, quantified the total loss of dependency at Rs. 5,04,000/- and by adding another sum of Rs. 26,000/- under conventional heads awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court. 4. Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel for Appellant urged following points; That the petition filed under Section 163A of the Act, itself was not maintainable as the annual income of the deceased as claimed in the petition exceeded Rs. 40,000/-; The Tribunal in a petition under Section 163A of the Act, could not have taken annual income of the deceased at Rs. 42,000/- as the maximum annual income allowed under Schedule-II is only Rs. 40,000/-; The Tribunal is not justified in adopting the multiplier of 18 as applicable to the age of the deceased provided in Schedule-II and it ought to have quantified the loss of dependency on the basis of multiplier applicable to the age of younger of the parents; As per Schedule-II, compensation that can be awarded under conventional heads to the facts of this case was only Rs. 4,500/- and therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding Rs. 26,000/- under conventional heads. 5. Sri. 4,500/- and therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding Rs. 26,000/- under conventional heads. 5. Sri. R. Chandrashekhar, learned Counsel for Respondent-claimants, contended that while filing the petition under Section 163A of the Act, it is open to the claimants to notionaly scale down the income of the deceased to the maximum amount under Schedule-II, though the deceased had higher income, so as to avail the benefit of said section. It is his submission that on behalf of Respondents, he has filed a memo restricting the annual income of deceased at Rs. 40,000/-, therefore, the Respondents have no objections to modify the award to that extent. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd of income of deceased for the personal expenses as provided under second Schedule. It is his further submission that, the multiplier mentioned in second Schedule has application only to non-fatal accident cases and not to fatal accident cases, and in a petition under Section 163A of the Act. in respect of fatal accident, the loss of dependency has to be quantified on the basis of figures mentioned in the horizontal column in relation to the applicable annual income of deceased as indicated in second Schedule. He fairly submitted that the award of compensation under conventional heads has to be as mentioned in second Schedule. 6. The claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of the offending lorry. The claim petition was contested only by the Appellant Insurance Company while the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The Appellant Insurance Company did not seriously dispute the manner in which the accident occurred. As noticed supra, the first contention urged by the learned Counsel for Appellant before this Court is with regard to the maintainability of petition filed under Section 163A of the Act, as even according to the claimants, monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/-, as such it exceeded the maximum amount mentioned in the II schedule of the Act. 7. A perusal of the claim petition indicates that in Column No. 6 of the petition, the claimants have mentioned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- being the salary and Rs. 1,500/- towards over time, thus, in all Rs. 5,000/- per month. 7. A perusal of the claim petition indicates that in Column No. 6 of the petition, the claimants have mentioned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- being the salary and Rs. 1,500/- towards over time, thus, in all Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is well settled law that claim petition under Section 163A being a social security provision, its benefit can be availed only by those whose annual income is Rs. 40,000/- and all other claimants claiming higher income can approach the Tribunal under Chapter XII of the Act. This position of law has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, AIR 2004 SC 2107 . At para 67, the Apex Court has observed thus: 67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163A the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. 8. As. in the case on hand, the claimants have sought to contend that deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, they could not have maintained the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act. It is further amplified by the findings of Trial Court that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- per month which also goes beyond maximum amount of Rs. 40,000/- per annum mentioned in II schedule. 9. Therefore, we find considerable force in the contention of Mr. A N Krishna Swamy about the maintainability of the petition filed under Section 163A of the Act. However, as held by the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case noticed supra, all other claims are required to determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act, the petition though filed under Section 163A cannot be rejected. It is the duty of the Tribunal to consider such claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. 10. However, as held by the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case noticed supra, all other claims are required to determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act, the petition though filed under Section 163A cannot be rejected. It is the duty of the Tribunal to consider such claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. 10. For this view of ours, we gain support from the fact that as per Sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the Act, it is mandatory for the Claims Tribunal to treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act. As per Sub-section (6) of Section 158, an officer in-charge of the police station as soon as he receives information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person, he shall forward a copy of such report within thirty days from the date of recording of information or on completion of such report as the case may be to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereafter to the concerned insurer. The said Sub-section further provides that when a copy of such report is made available to the owner, the said owner is also under an obligation to forward the same within thirty days from the date of receipt of such report to the Claims Tribunal and insurer. 11. Thus, from the scheme of the Act, it is noticed that it is not necessary in all cases that claimants themselves should file an application under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. As the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, regarding adjudication of compensation payable to the victims are social piece of legislation, the provisions are required to be interpreted liberally. 12. In the present case though the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act by showing monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/-, petition was not liable to be rejected by the Tribunal. On the other hand, it is required to be considered as a petition under Section 166 of the Act. In fact, perusal of judgment in appeal passed by the Tribunal indicates that it has considered the claim petition as the one under Section 166 of the Act. 5,000/-, petition was not liable to be rejected by the Tribunal. On the other hand, it is required to be considered as a petition under Section 166 of the Act. In fact, perusal of judgment in appeal passed by the Tribunal indicates that it has considered the claim petition as the one under Section 166 of the Act. The very fact that the claims Tribunal framed issue regarding actionable negligence and in the judgment under appeal it has answered the said issue in the affirmative in favour of the Claimants, though as per Sub-section (2) of Section 163(A) of the Act, the claimant is not 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 is an indication that the claim petition was treated as the one under Section 166 of the Act. Therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case, the Tribunal is justified in treating the petition as the one under Section 166 of the Act and has proceeded to quantify the compensation. 13. No doubt, before this Court, the learned Counsel for Respondent-claimants have filed a memo to the effect that the claimants notionaly restricts the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- per annum to bring the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act. In our considered opinion, having regard to the fact that claimants having asserted in the claim petition that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- per month and having re-iterated the same in the evidence led before the Tribunal and in view of the fact that Tribunal accepting the evidence of claimants has recorded a finding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- per month, it is not open for the Respondents in this appeal to notionaly bring down annual income of the deceased to Rs. 40,000/- so as to maintain petition under Section 163A of the Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the said memo. 3,500/- per month, it is not open for the Respondents in this appeal to notionaly bring down annual income of the deceased to Rs. 40,000/- so as to maintain petition under Section 163A of the Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the said memo. Nevertheless, in view of the above discussion, though the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act was not maintainable, the Tribunal having considered the petition under Section 166 of the Act is justified in doing so in the light of the law laid down in the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case. In view of the above, there is no need to consider the arguments regarding applicability or non-applicability of second schedule. 14. The Tribunal after determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- for the purpose of quantifying the loss of dependency has chosen the multiplier of 18 as applicable to the age of the deceased. The claimants are parents and minor younger sister, who is hardly aged about 11/2 years. Now. it is well settled judicial principle that in case of death of Bachelor, for the purpose of finding out the appropriate multiplier, the age of the younger of the parents is relevant. In the claim petition, the age of second Petitioner is shown as 38 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable with reference to the age of mother of deceased is 15. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards the personal expenses and accepted 2/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased as contribution to the family, and on that basis, the Tribunal has quantified the loss of dependency. It is once again well settled judicial principle that in case of death of Bachelor, the deduction towards personal expenses is to be 50% and only remaining 50% should be taken as contribution of the deceased to the family for the purpose of quantifying the loss of dependency. 15. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3,500/-. The claimants as noticed supra, have contended that deceased was working in Sai Export Garments as Checker on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month and he was also getting over time payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The first claimant, being father of deceased has reiterated this fact in his evidence by way of affidavit. 3,500/-. The claimants as noticed supra, have contended that deceased was working in Sai Export Garments as Checker on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month and he was also getting over time payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The first claimant, being father of deceased has reiterated this fact in his evidence by way of affidavit. During cross examination, on behalf of Appellant insurer, except suggesting that the deceased was not working in Sai Export Garments and was not earning Rs. 3,500/- per month as salary and Rs. 1,500/- per month as over time payment, nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. 16. The witness has denied those suggestions. To substantiate their contention that the deceased was working in Sai Garments, the Claimants have produced Ex.P9 - temporary identity card issued by ESI Corporation. The Appellant insurer has not seriously disputed the genuiness of Ex.P9, except suggesting to PW1 that for the purpose of the case, Ex.P9 has been created. From the above, it: is clear that deceased was working in a Garments Factory. No doubt, no one from the said establishment is examined to prove the actual salary, which he was drawing. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the deceased was the only son to the family, was forced to earn and maintain the family and for this he was required to earn sufficient money for providing basic needs to his dependants. Having regard to the unimpeachable evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased could be safely taken at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 48.000/-. Out of this, if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the balance amount of Rs. 24,000/- forms basis for quantifying the loss of dependency. Adopting multiplier of 15 applicable to the age of mother of deceased, total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,60,000/- (24,000 X 15). 17. The claimants 1 and 2 have lost their young son aged about 20 years. All their hopes of being maintained and protected by their son during the evening of their life is shattered. They have lost the love and affection of their young son, their future is highly bleak. They have a young daughter to maintain and bring her up in life. All their hopes of being maintained and protected by their son during the evening of their life is shattered. They have lost the love and affection of their young son, their future is highly bleak. They have a young daughter to maintain and bring her up in life. Keeping these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it necessary to award reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss to estate, Rs. 10,000/-towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/-. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed to this extent. 19. Accordingly, appeal is allowed-in-part. 20. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,30,000-/- is reduced to Rs. 4,20,000/-. The award of interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment as ordered by the Tribunal is confirmed. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation with interest, within six weeks from today. 21. The compensation amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- shall be shared amongst the claimants 1 to 3 as follows: 1) For First claimant Rs. 1,00,000/-; 2) For Second claimant Rs. 1,70,000/-; and 3) For Third claimant Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest. 22. The entire amount apportioned to the share of third claimant who is a minor, with interest, is directed to be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled bank till she attains majority with liberty to the natural guardian namely the father to withdraw periodical interest quarterly and to be utilised for the benefit of the minor daughter. 23. Out of the compensation amount awarded to the share of second claimant, a sum of Rs. 1,00.000/- with proportionate interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled bank in her name for a period of 5 years with liberty to her to withdraw periodical interest quarterly. 24. Out of the compensation amount payable to first claimant, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled bank in his name for a period of 5 years with liberty to withdraw periodical interest quarterly. 25. 24. Out of the compensation amount payable to first claimant, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled bank in his name for a period of 5 years with liberty to withdraw periodical interest quarterly. 25. The balance amount with proportionate interest shall be released to Claimants 1 and 2. 26. Office to draw award accordingly.