JUDGMENT While considering the appellants’ application for expeditious hearing, we were requested by the learned advocates of both the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit after hearing them. Accordingly, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. Since the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim case before the Tribunal, requirement of service of notice of appeal upon the owner of the offending vehicle is dispensed with on the prayer of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants. Thus, the appeal is treated as ready as regards service upon the respondents. 3. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and/or award dated 22nd July, 2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj, in M.A.C. Case No. 30 of 2002 at the instance of the claimants/appellants. 5. The claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected by the learned Tribunal. However, while rejecting the claimants’ claim petition under Section 163A of the said Act, the learned Tribunal held that since the victim was a driver of one of the two offending vehicles which were involved in the accident causing his death, the claimants may claim compensation against his employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claimants are aggrieved by such award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed. 6. It is true that in order to get compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are not required to prove the cause of such accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle by its driver. However, the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claimants’ claim petition held that since the victim being a driver of one of such offending vehicles contributed to the cause of such accident resulting his death, the claimants cannot claim any compensation under Section 163A of the said Act. This part of the findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be supported by us as we find that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claimants’ said claim petition made out a third case by introducing that the victim who was the driver of one of such offending vehicle contributed to the cause of such accident resulting his death. 7. This part of the findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be supported by us as we find that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claimants’ said claim petition made out a third case by introducing that the victim who was the driver of one of such offending vehicle contributed to the cause of such accident resulting his death. 7. On consideration of the pleadings of the respective parties, we find that it was nobody’s case that the victim who was the driver of one of such offending vehicle contributed to the cause of accident resulting his death. As such, we cannot support such finding of the learned Tribunal. 8. Be that as it may, Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable in the instant case as the claimants themselves claimed in their claim petition that the victim who was a driver of one of such offending vehicles, used to earn a sum of Rs.3000/- per month on account of his salary and Rs.50/- per day on account of his daily food allowance, meaning thereby that his income exceeded the maximum income slab as prescribed in the structured formula. 9. Mr. Singh, by relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin and anr. -vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. reported in 2011(1) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.) submits that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the said decision that the batta (daily allowance) which is paid to the employee in addition to his salary by his employer should be regarded as his income. 10. Mr. Singh thus, submits that if the 50/- rupees daily allowance which the victim used to receive from his employer on account of his daily meal allowance, is taken as a part of his salary then his net salary will be Rs.4,500/- per month. Thus, his annual income was not less than 54,000/- per annum. He thus, submits that if his income was Rs. 54,000/- per annum, then the claimants cannot get any relief under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as the relief which is provided under Section 163A of the said Act, can be availed of by any person belonging to the income group whose annual income does not exceed 40,000/- per annum. 11. 54,000/- per annum, then the claimants cannot get any relief under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as the relief which is provided under Section 163A of the said Act, can be availed of by any person belonging to the income group whose annual income does not exceed 40,000/- per annum. 11. In support of such submission, he has also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girish Bhaisoni -vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2004(2) T.A.C. 289(SC), wherein it was held as follows:- 51. “The scheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society. 52. Although the Act is beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the Court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered thereby. (See Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 278.) 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 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A 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.” 12. 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A 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.” 12. Having given our anxious consideration to the conflicting claims of the respective parties and on perusal of the decision which was cited at the bar, we are of the view that the instant application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable at the instance of the claimants as the income of the deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/- per annum. 13. Mr. Rahaman, learned advocate appearing for the claimants/appellants submitted that the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Smt. Bhagya Majumdar & Ors. -vs- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012)2 WBLR (Cal) 653 held that irrespective of the income claimed by the claimants, if the court finds that the income of the deceased was less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum then application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be maintained at the instance of the claimants/appellants. 14. We do not want to joint any issue of such proposition of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in the said decision but applicability of the said decision in the instant case is doubtful as here is the case where we find that the claimants themselves not only claimed in the claim petition that the income of the victim was Rs. 54,000/- per annum but also they stated in their evidence that the income of the victim was Rs. 54,000/- per annum i.e. Rs. 3,000/- on account of salary per month and Rs. 50/- on account of daily food allowance. In the light of such pleadings and the evidence of the claimants, we cannot come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was lesser than Rs.40,000/- per annum. 15. As such, we hold that the decision which was cited by Mr. Rahaman cannot help his client in any manner whatsoever. As such, we hold that the application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable at the instance of such claimants. 16. 15. As such, we hold that the decision which was cited by Mr. Rahaman cannot help his client in any manner whatsoever. As such, we hold that the application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable at the instance of such claimants. 16. We however, make it clear that we have not made any observation with regard to the claimants’ entitlement to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the employer of the victim. It is thus, made clear that in the event any such application is filed by the claimants before the commission of Workmen’s Compensation, the said forum will decide the claim petition on its own merit in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 17. Both the appeal and application are thus, disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.