Hon'ble MODY, J.—Being aggrieved by the award dated 6.7.2005 passed by XIII MACT, Indore in claim case No.62/2004 whereby claim case filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sus-tained by the appellant was dismissed, present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim case alleging that on 03/11/2003 at about 09.00 AM appellant was going on Scooter bearing registration No.MP-09/U/7703 which was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. It was alleged that younger brother of the appellant was pillion rider on the said Scooter. It was alleged that at that time the said Scooter met with an accident with half body truck registered from State of Gujarat. It was alleged that since accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the truck, therefore, appellant sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that case was registered. It was alleged that offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. It was alleged that appellant is entitled for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act". It was prayed that adequate amount of compensation be awarded by allowing the claim case filed by the appellant. The claim case was contested by the respondent No.1 by filing written statement but thereafter respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 also contested the claim case by filing the written statement wherein all the allegations made in the claim case were denied. It was denied that any accident has occurred by the offending vehicle. It was alleged that claim case is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act. It was alleged that since the respondent No.1 is the owner, therefore, also respondent No.2 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim case be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal dismissed the claim case filed by the appellant holding that since income of the appellant is more than Rs.40,000/-per annum as alleged by the appellant, therefore, claim case is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act. Another ground which was for dismissal of claim case was that the involvement of the offending vehicle is not proved, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Another ground which was for dismissal of claim case was that the involvement of the offending vehicle is not proved, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that learned tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim case. It is submitted that it is true that the appellant has stated in the cross-examination that income of the appellant is more than Rs.60,000/- per year but that does not mean that appellant is not entitled for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. It is submitted that another ground for dismissal of claim case by learned tribunal is that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is submitted that sufficient evidence is on record to prove that accident occurred by the offending vehicle and criminal case was registered against unknown driver and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is true that it was Scooter on which appellant was going to garage. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of learned tribunal in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Pushplata Verma vs. Chane Singh 2006 (III) DMP 434 (M.P.) wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 163-A provides the income Rs.40,000/- as per structured formula under Schedule II. It is submitted that since it is not the plea of the respondent No.2 that the offending vehicle was borrowed by the appellant from the respondent No.1, therefore, this ground cannot be raised by the respondent No.2 before this Court. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Satyanarayan vs. Rameshwar 2009 ACJ 1467 wherein this Court has held that in a case where insurance company in its written statement did not raise the plea that it was not liable for payment of compensation as policy was an Act policy, Insurance company cannot claim exoneration from liability. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of United Indian Insurance Co. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Saroj Bai 2008 ACJ 1063 wherein motor cycle collided with a buffalo and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries and insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that pillion rider was not covered under the terms of the policy and also insurance company participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal but it never raised any ground to disown liability on the footing that pillion rider was not covered, this Court held that claimants had no opportunity to meet this ground and to adduce evidence. Learned counsel submits that the word owner is defined under Section 2 (30) of the Act where borrower cannot be said to be the owner as per definition of owner. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and adequate compensation be awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that right from beginning case of the respondent No.1 is that no accident has occurred by the offending vehicle. It is submitted that learned tribunal has rightly held that no accident has occurred by the offending vehicle. It is submitted that since extra premium was paid by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2, therefore, risk of the respondent is covered under the policy. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that since income of the appellant was more than Rs.40,000/- and beneficiary provision under Section 163-A of the Act lays down that if the income of the appellant is more than Rs.40,000/- as per second Schedule of the Act which also lays down the structured formula than no claim can be filed by a person whose income is above Rs.40,000/-. It is submitted that since the appellant himself has declared his income, therefore, claim case is not maintainable. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Mithlesh vs. Satbir Singh 2011(2) T.A.C. 173 (P&H) where in Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A of the Act, more so person having higher income than Rs.40,000/- per month cannot maintain a petition under Section 163-A, therefore, interference with impugned award declined with. It is submitted that undisputedly appellant borrowed the Scooter from respondent No.1, therefore, appellant steps into the shoes of respon-dent No.1 who is the owner. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim case as the respondent No.2 has not covered the risk of owner. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indu Saraswat 2009 ACJ 2413 wherein Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in a case wherein income is more than Rs.40,000/- p.a. and the petition is under section 163-A of MV Act, it was held that in respect of person whose income is more than Rs.40,000/- p.a. is not maintainable by reducing the claim to the limit provided in the section as the claimant cannot afford long drawn litigation. It is submitted that Sec. 163-A in the Act has been inserted with the object to give relief to a section of public having income up to particular level. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance 2004 ACJ 934 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that Section 163-A of the Act being a social security provision, provides a distinct scheme for those victims of accidents whose income is upto Rs.40,000/-. It is submitted that since appellant has borrowed the offending vehicle from respondent No.1, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi 2009(1) TAC 425 (SC) = 2009(1) CCR 248 (SC) = 2009(3) RLW 2768 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of third party risk where the son of owner of motor-cycle while driving accident took place as a stray dog came in front of motor-cycle and died due to accident, it was held that contract of insurance governed by provisions of Insurance Act and the terms of policy being deciding factor. It was held that insurer is not liable to pay the amount of compensation for the death of son of the injured. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Ningamma vs. United India Insurance Co. It was held that insurer is not liable to pay the amount of compensation for the death of son of the injured. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Ningamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 ACJ 2020 = 2009(2) CCR 979 (SC) wherein death of borrower of motor cycle as motor cycle dashed against a bullock cart proceedings ahead resulting in death of motorcyclist, it was held that since deceased borrowed the motor cycle from its owner, therefore, would not be entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. It was further held that a owner cannot himself be a recipient of compensation as liability to pay the same is on him. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim case filed by the appellant. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 6. To prove the case appellant has filed the documents Ex.P/1 to P/120. Ex.P/1 to P/10 relates to criminal case. Ex.P/1 is the information given to the appellant on 12/02/2005 by the police department under the provisions of R.T.I. Act whereby it has been informed that upon investigation it was found that the accident which occurred on 03/11/2003 was caused by unknown person and in the accident the Scooter of the appellant was also damaged. Ex.P/2 is the final report dated 15/12/2003. Ex.P/3 is the entry of concerned police station whereby information about the accident was received. Ex.P/4 is the FIR. Ex.P/5 is the crime detail form. Ex.P/6 and P/7 are the statements of appellant and Mohd. Abbas. Apart from this, to prove the case appellant has examined himself as AW/1, Mohd. Abbas as AW/2, Dr. Javed as AW/3 and Hussain Khan as AW/4. 7. Ex.P/4 is the FIR. Ex.P/5 is the crime detail form. Ex.P/6 and P/7 are the statements of appellant and Mohd. Abbas. Apart from this, to prove the case appellant has examined himself as AW/1, Mohd. Abbas as AW/2, Dr. Javed as AW/3 and Hussain Khan as AW/4. 7. From the record, it is evident that learned tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding that appellant is not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents firstly; on the ground that the income of the appellant was more than Rs.60,000/- p.a. which disentitles the appellant to file the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, secondly; the cause of injury was the rash and negligent driving of the offending unknown truck and lastly since the appellant borrowed the scooter from respondent No.1, therefore, appellant is not entitled to file claim petition against the respondents who are owner and insurance company of the offending scooter. In the matter of Brijnandan Sharan Bansal vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation 2007 ACJ 692 wherein a Division Bench of Uttaranchal High Court at Nainital while dealing with an appeal arising out of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the income of deceased was Rs.78,000/-p.a. held that the income of deceased @ Rs.40,000/- p.a. is maximum fixed under the Schedule for the purpose of compensation. In the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sakina Bano 2009 ACJ 717 wherein income of the deceased driver was of Rs.42,000/-p.a. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court at Lucknow held that in view of the fact that Section 163-A is a social security provision where income of the victim is more than Rs.40,000/- p.a. is maintainable. In the matter of Rukmani Devi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2009 ACJ 2202 wherein claimant claiming income of the deceased @ Rs.60,000/- p.a. and claimant withdrew the application and preferred the same application under Section 163-A, learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that income pleaded goes beyond the restriction of Rs.40,000/-p.a. Delhi High Court held that denying such right would defeat the very social objective of granting speedy and expeditious compensation to victims of accidents; legislation intended to come to the rescue of all those who in the absence of evidence are not in a position to file claim under section 166 where negligence involving the offending vehicle is required to be established. 8. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the income of the appellant was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, this Court is of the view that this can not be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. The structured formula is of the year 19994 when Section 163-A of the Act was brought with an object to give benefit to the persons having income as per schedule. Keeping in view the rate of inflation, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Government to amend the schedule, but inspite of lapse of more than 17 years and also the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court the structured formula has not been amended. Therefore, only because the income of appellant was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum it cannot be a ground of dismissal of claim petition. However, in the present case the best evidence was the damaged scooter on which the appellant was going but the same was neither seized, nor any panchnama was prepared. No bills of repair of scooter was submitted. No claim was filed by the respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 towards damage the property. Pillion rider who is the cousin brother sustained fracture but did not file any claim petition. There is no evidence on record about the injuries sustained by the pillion rider. Apart from this no independent witness was examined by the appellant to prove the accident. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed. No order as to costs.