Judgment 1. This appeal preferred by Insurance Company who had provided cover to the ninth respondent -owner of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-11/A-3486 which vehicle was involved in a road accident when collision took place between this vehicle and the two-wheeler that had occurred on 27.02.2005 at Devarukh Village, Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra State, resulting in the death of rider of the two-wheeler and therefore the dependents of the said persons i.e. respondents 2 to 8 having filed a claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short ‘the Act’] before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. III, at Bijapur resulting in a Judgment and Order for payment of compensation of Rs.3,81,000/-in favour of the claimants and questioning this amount of compensation both on the ground that appellant-insurance Company is not liable to pay this amount and amount is also not in accordance with law. 2. Matter has come up today before the court for orders on IA. 1/2012 to take out substituted service of notice on ninth respondent who is not served, through paper publication. 3. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company submits that after examining the provisions of Section 163A of the Act, this application is not pressed. 4. I have heard Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company and Sri. Chandrakanth Koujalagi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 on the merits of the matter. 5. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company would firstly contend that the pleadings and the material placed before the Court by the very claimants indicated that it was the rider of the two wheeler who was negligent and had caused the accident and therefore learned Judge of the Tribunal is clearly in error in recording the finding on Issue No.1; that the claimants proved that deceased died on account of use of motor vehicle on the date of accident. 6. 6. It is also submitted that while the claim petition was under Section 163A of the Act, the pleadings and the examination was as though it is a petition under Section 166 of the Act and therefore the evidence on record particularly the FIR at Exhibit P. 1 and certified copy of the spot panchanama at Exhibit P.2 assumed significance; that the FIR clearly indicated the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle who died in the accident. It is therefore submitted that there was no liability either on the owner of the other vehicle namely the Tata 407 or the appellant who had provided cover to the owner of the motor vehicle. 7. Without prejudice, Mr. Manvendra Reddy would also submit that the quantification of the compensation payable particularly under the non pecuniary heads is not in accordance with provisions of Section 163A of the Act read with the Second Schedule to the Act; that the total compensation that can be awarded under the conventional heads in claim petition preferred under Section 163A of the Act is only a sum of Rs.9,500/-as it is case of the person died on the spot and the Tribunal awarding a total sum of Rs.45,000/-under the conventional heads is not justified and requires to be corrected. 8. On the other hand Sri. Chandrakanth Koujalagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 submits that the claim petition is one filed under Section 163A of the Act and there is no dispute and even the Judgment and Order passed is also indicative that it is only on the basis of the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act, the claim is allowed in part with costs etc. The claimants while had claimed total compensation of a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-but the amount awarded is only Rs.3,81,000/-which is quite conservative; that this amount is justified under provisions of Section 163 of the Act and there is no need for interference etc. 9. Sri. The claimants while had claimed total compensation of a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-but the amount awarded is only Rs.3,81,000/-which is quite conservative; that this amount is justified under provisions of Section 163 of the Act and there is no need for interference etc. 9. Sri. Chandrakanth Koujalagi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 8 would point out to provisions of section 163A of the Act and submits that even assuming that the Tribunal has given a finding regarding negligence etc., that is virtually redundant or unnecessary as with or without the finding, the claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Act as it is in the nature of a no fault liability claim and what is required to be made good is only the fact of death or injury and consequent disability, having been due to use of a motor vehicle making the owner and the insurer of the vehicle liable under those statutory provisions. 10. However with regard to the quantum of compensation under the conventional heads, Sri. Chandrakanth Koujalagi would fairly submit that the amount is in excess of the amount as provided for in terms of Second Schedule to the Act and to that extent correction may be applied, but not beyond. 11. I have perused the Judgment and order under appeal and bestowed attention to the submissions made at the Bar. 12. There is no dispute that the claim petition is one under Section 163A of the Act. Section 163A of the Act reads as under: 163A. Special provisions 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 authorised 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. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be 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. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule”. 13. An examination of this section indicates that what is required to be made good is the factum of death or injuries of permanent disability in nature having occurred to a person due to use of motor vehicle on the road involved in the accident and irrespective of who has contributed or who was negligent for the cause of the accident, owner and the insurer of the vehicle being made liable to pay compensation as per the structured formula as indicated in Second Schedule to the Act. 14. No doubt there is some discussion in the Judgment of the Tribunal regarding negligence etc., but the learned Judge of the Tribunal has framed issue No.1 very correctly saying that whether the petitioners prove that deceased died on account of use of the vehicle on the date of accident. While this fact is not even much in dispute, the debate was only about rider of the two wheeler himself contributing to the accident by his negligence. 15. Having regard to the language of Section 163A of the Act, this is a non issue for awarding compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The requirements are only as to whether an accident involving motor vehicle took place resulting in death or bodily injury of the nature mentioned in the Schedule which entitles one for compensation irrespective of who contributed or who was negligent for causing the accident. 16. The requirements are only as to whether an accident involving motor vehicle took place resulting in death or bodily injury of the nature mentioned in the Schedule which entitles one for compensation irrespective of who contributed or who was negligent for causing the accident. 16. While examining the scope of a statutory provision like this Courts should keep in mind the intention of the legislature to provide compensation to the dependents of the person who dies in an accident without making the question of negligence an issue and that is why Section 163A of the Act has been introduced in the statute book by way of amendment and as an exception to the normal claim petition that can be preferred under Section 166 of the Act. 17. On the aspect of the accident and Tata 407 vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-11/A-3486 also being involved in the accident there is not much dispute and therefore the claim petition under Section 163A is required to be ordered. Quantification regarding loss of dependency is not much in dispute but what is pointed out is only quantification under the other heads. 18. A perusal of column-3 in Second Schedule to the Act indicates that limit under the head funeral expenses-Rs.2,000/-, loss of consortium if beneficiary is the spouse, Rs.5,000/-, loss of estate Rs.2,500/-and in the instant case, there being no scope for hospitalization of the deceased as he died, no allowance can be made towards medical expenses. So under the head 'General Damages', maximum that can be awarded is only Rs.9,500/-and to this extent, Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in his submissions. 19. In the circumstances, while the contention that insurance Company cannot be made liable is not accepted, insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is modified and amount is indicated to be Rs.3,36,000/-towards loss of dependency and Rs.9,500/-under the head 'General Damages' in all Rs.3,45,500/-. The appeal is allowed to this extent. In all other aspects of Judgment and Order of the Tribunal is retained. 20. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement and balance if any to be deposited by the appellant-insurance Company within six weeks from today. Disbursement to be made in the proportion as indicated by the Tribunal.