Judgment :- 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed MFA No.4344/2007 challenging the liability saddled on it by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Bangalore in MVC No.2753/2001 dated 23-11-2006. MFA No.4901/2008 is filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation to them. 2. The facts in these two appeals are: One Dinesh was travelling in a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.MH-04/AC-7399 on 21-9-2000 at about 9.45 a.m. when the said vehicle was near K.Holekatte near Bharamasagar on NH 4, on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry in which Dinesh was travelling dashed against another lorry bearing registration NO.KA-17/7088, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Hospital and then he was under the treatment at Hosmat Hospital at Bangalore. The injured Dinesh filed a claim petition in MVC No.2753/2001 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. After his evidence was concluded, he died on 20-5-2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. After the death of Dinesh, his wife and children who are the claimants, amended the claim petition from 166 of Motor Vehicles Act to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of Dinesh, which was allowed and thereafter, the claimants got amended the petition and filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company raised objections contending that the claim petition lodged by the claimants was not maintainable since Dinesh was travelling in the vehicle as a representative of his employer carrying goods of his employer. It was contended in view of Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act is prohibited and requested the court to dismiss the petition. 4. The Tribunal after examining the evidence let in by the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling along with the goods and awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,308/- as total compensation fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Insurance Company filed MFA No.4344/2005. 5. Contending that the claimants have spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenditure and the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head. The claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Insurance Company filed MFA No.4344/2005. 5. Contending that the claimants have spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenditure and the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head. The claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Therefore, these two matters are heard together. 6. Mr. A.K. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contends that in view of Section 53 of the ESI Act, the claim petition lodged under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable, since Dinesh was travelling along with the goods of his employer and he sustained injuries while discharging his duties and succumbed to the injuries later. In the circumstances, he requested the court to allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition by directing the claimants to approach the authorities under the ESI Act, 1948 for their grievances. To support his view, he has relied upon the judgment of this court in K.S. Vasantha & Others v/s. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in 1982 ACJ (Supp) 249. 7. Mr. Bhat further contended that even if the court holds that the claim petition lodged by the claimants was maintainable, awarding interest from the date of claim petition is bad in law, since the claim petition was initiated by the deceased and he died 5 years after filing of the claim petition. He further contends that since the Tribunal has held that the deceased did not die while discharging his duties, then also the claim petition lodged by the claimants was not maintainable because the deceased was not authorized to travel in the goods vehicle. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that none of the grounds urged by the appellant-Insurance Company are tenable because the petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act which Section has come into force from 14-11-1994. He further contends that plain reading of Section 163-A would reveal to the Court that the provision of Section 53 of the ESI Act has no application to the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further contends that plain reading of Section 163-A would reveal to the Court that the provision of Section 53 of the ESI Act has no application to the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further contends that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not travelling as a representative of his employer is incorrect because Dinesh on behalf of his employer was travelling in the goods vehicle carrying goods of his employer by hiring the vehicle in question. Therefore, the said finding is basically not based on the proper appreciation of evidence and pleading of the parties. In the circumstances, he requested the court to hold that the deceased was travelling in the Goods vehicle representing his employer. He further submits that the appellant-Insurance Company cannot take a contention that they are not liable to discharge the liability saddled on them because the deceased was not an employee of the insured and that he was an employee of the hirer and that the lorry in question was hired by the employer of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to contend that in view of Section 53 of the ESI Act, the claim petition was not maintainable. He further submits that the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenditure is also on the lower side. According to him, in view of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in (2008) 7 SCC 613 in the case of Sapna V/S United India Insurance Company Limited and another. The Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that in appropriate cases, the court can deviate from the structured formula on Section 163-A of the Act and award suitable compensation. 9. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and also relying upon the documents produced by the deceased (claimant before the Tribunal) that he was under the treatment for more than 5 years in the hospital and has spent large amount towards his treatment and ultimately he succumbed to injuries. Therefore, awarding of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses requires to be reconsidered by this court. 10. Therefore, awarding of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses requires to be reconsidered by this court. 10. He has also relied upon the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. ShriDevi and Others v/s Smt. S.Sarojini and another reported in ILR 2010 KAR 760 to show that Section 53 of the ESI Act would not come in the way of granting compensation to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following points are to be considered by us in these appeals: (i) In view of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether Section 53 of the ESI Act can be pressed into service? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation under the mead medical expenditure? And (iii) Whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal from the date of lodging a claim petition by the injured claimant claiming compensation in favour of his legal representatives who have converted the petition after he succumbed to injuries? 12. So far as first point is concerned, we have to extract the provision of Section 53 of the ESI Act and Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for reference, which reads as follows: “53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law – An insured person or his dependents shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act.” “163.A. Special provision 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 authorized 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.” 13. From reading of both sections, it is clear that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been inserted by Act 54/1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994, whereas Section 53 of the ESI Act was substituted w.e.f. 28-1-1968. When the provision of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act says that there is no bar under any other law, the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be held as maintainable, since Section 163-A has been introduced much long after the provisions of Section 53 of the ESI Act. Therefore, Point No.1 has to be answered in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Company. 14. So far as point No.2 is concerned, under the structured formula, the court is empowered to award only Rs.15,000/- as compensation under the head medical expenditure under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sapna’s case cited supra had an occasion to consider the said provision and after considering the said provision in detail their Lordships have held that in appropriate cases, the Court can deviate and award excess compensation. Therefore, what is required to be considered in this case is whether the Court can deviate from the structured formula to consider the case of the claimants under the head medical expenditure in excess of Rs.15,000/- 15. It is not in dispute that Dinesh sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 21-1-2000 and he succumbed to injuries on 20-5-2005 nearly after 5 years. The evidence on record discloses that he was under continuous treatment from the date of accident till his death and he died due to the accidental injuries. He was an ordinary employee and he was admitted to one of the best hospitals in Bangalore wherein, the claimants were forced to spend more than Rs.3,50,000/-towards medical expenditure only. When the income of the injured was only Rs.2,400/-p.m., it is possible for him or to his family members to spend more than Rs.3,50,000/-towards treatment. Therefore, it is a fit case where the court has to deviate from the structured formula. Considering the case of the claimants, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenditure is lesser than the amount spent towards medical expenses. In this background, we are of the view that point No.2 has to be answered in favour of the claimants. 16. Considering the case of the claimants, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenditure is lesser than the amount spent towards medical expenses. In this background, we are of the view that point No.2 has to be answered in favour of the claimants. 16. It is pertinent to note that though the claimants have produced the medical bills, the Tribunal had no occasion to look into those documents because the Tribunal has proceeded based on the compensation payable to the claimants as per the II Schedule and there was no opportunity for the owner of the vehicle or for the Insurance Company to meet the claim made by the claimants in regard to the medical expenses. Since there is no finding of the Tribunal in regard to expenses incurred by the claimants towards treatment of the deceased, the matter requires to be remanded to consider this point only. 17. So far as the last point is concerned, admittedly, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation and interest thereon from the date of petition. In the instant case, we have to consider whether the petition presented by the injured claiming compensation towards injuries sustained by him has to be counted for the purpose of awarding interest or from the date of death, which has given cause of action for the claimants to lodge a claim petition. Therefore, we are of the view that the interest has to be calculated not from the date of filing of the petition by the deceased, but from the date of his death. Accordingly, the said award has to be modified. 18. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The interest awarded by the Tribunal shall be calculated from the date of death of the deceased (from 20-5-2005) and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the claim of the claimants in regard to the expenditure incurred towards medical expenditure in terms of our finding on point No.2. The amount in deposit if any, in MFA No.4344/2007 is ordered to transmitted to the Tribunal.