JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—These appeals have been preferred by the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgment dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Chittorgarh in two separate claim applications No. 373/2004 and 457/2004 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants as below:- 1. In Claim Application No. 373/2004 filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants Laxmi Narayan, Kailash Chandra and Ashok were awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Shri Mukesh. 2. In Claim Application No. 457/2004, total compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- was awarded to the claimants Devkishan and others and the non claimant Laxmi Narayan for the death of Smt. Jyoti. 2. Facts in brief are that on 4.3.2004 Shri Mukesh S/o Laxmi Narayan was proceeding with his wife Smt. Jyoti on his motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ-09-4M-4913 from Chittorgarh to village Bambori. On the Chittorgarh-Nimbahera highway near the Jubilee Petrol Pump, the driver of a truck No. RJ-06-G-4654 came from the opposite direction driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and at a great speed. Mukesh tried to take his motor cycle to the side so as to avoid a possible collision with the aforesaid truck. In the meantime a truck No. HR-38-J-5684 which was also coming from Chittorgarh at a great speed took the motor cycle in its wake from behind as a result of which both Mukesh as well as Jyoti expired at the spot. 3. Two separate claim applications were filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court at M.A.C.T. Chittorgarh seeking compensation for the deaths of the Shri Mukesh and Smt. Jyoti. 4. Claim Application No. 373/2004 was filed by Laxmi Narayan (father of the deceased Mukesh), Kailash Chandra and Ashok (brother of the Mukesh). 5. Claim Application No. 457/2004 was filed by Devkishan, Gyatri, Sanjay, Sharika and Sulekha, the maternal relatives of Smt.Jyoti. Laxmi Narayan the Father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Jyoti was impleaded as a non claimant in this claim application. 6. The owners, drivers and insurers of both the trucks involved in the accident were impleaded as non-claimants in the claim applications. The United India Insurance Company was the insurer of both the trucks involved in the accident. Laxmi Narayan the Father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Jyoti was impleaded as a non claimant in this claim application. 6. The owners, drivers and insurers of both the trucks involved in the accident were impleaded as non-claimants in the claim applications. The United India Insurance Company was the insurer of both the trucks involved in the accident. Upon receiving the notice of the claim applications, a written statement was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company pleading that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by its driver Shri Mukesh and thus he contributed equally to the accident in question. It was also pleaded that both the truck drivers were not having valid and effective driving licences for driving their respective vehicles and thus the Insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated from the liability to satisfy the claims. 7. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:- ^^1- vk;k fnukad 4-3-2004 dks 3%30 ih-,e- ij e`rd eqds'k o T;ksfr eksVj lkbfdy uEcj vkj-ts- 09&4 ,e&4913 ls fpRrkSMx<+ ls cEcksjh tk jgs Fks fd jkLrs esa fprkSMx<+-fuEckgsM+k jksM+ ij tqcuh isVªksy iEi ds ikl lkeus ls Vªd ua- vkj-ts- 06&th&-4654 dks mldk pkyd rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pyk jgk Fkk] ftlls cpus gsrq lkbZM esa yh rks ihNs ls rst xfr ls vk jgh Vªd la- ,p-vkj- 38&ts&5684 us VDdj ekjh nh] ftlls ekSds ij gh nksuksa lokjksa dh e`R;q gks xbZ\ -----izkFkhZx.k 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k ,oa izdj.k la[;k 457@2004 esa foi{kh y{ehukjk;.k izkFkZuk i= esa vafdrkuqlkj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdlls o fdruh\ ------izkFkhZx.k@foi{kh 3- vk;k foi{kh Øa-1 chek daiuh }kjk izLrqr tokc nkok esa vafdr fo'ks"k vkifÙk;ka Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] ;fn gka rks bldk izHkko\ ---chek dEiuh 4- vuqrks"k\** 8. The claimants examined two witnesses in support of their respective claim applications. The respondents did not choose to lead any evidence. 9. The learned Tribunal held that the two brothers of Mukesh viz. Kailash Chandra and Ashok claimants No. 2 and 3 respectively in Claim Application No. 337/2004 were having their own sources of livelihood and thus they were not dependent upon him. It was also held that the grocery shop which as per the claimants was solely operated by Mukesh alone was as a matter fact a joint venture of Laxmi Narayan, the father and the deceased Mukesh. It was also held that the grocery shop which as per the claimants was solely operated by Mukesh alone was as a matter fact a joint venture of Laxmi Narayan, the father and the deceased Mukesh. However, the learned Tribunal held that the applicant Laxmi Narayan suffered a loss of income to the tune of Rs. 2400/- per month on account of the death of Mukesh. 1/3rd deduction was made towards the personal needs and expenses of the deceased. Mukesh was aged between 28-29 years at the time of the accident. Multiplier of 18 was applied and the loss of income was assessed at Rs. 3,45,600/-. Two brother of the deceased were awarded Rs. 12,400/- for loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- in all as compensation to the claimants in Claim Application No. 373/2004. 10. In Claim Application No. 457/2004 the claimants were the parents, brother and sister of the deceased Jyoti, Laxmi Narayan the father in law was impleaded as a non claimant. It was held that Smt. Jyoti was a house wife and was not having any source of income but in lieu of the services rendered by her to the household by doing the routine jobs, her notional income was assessed as Rs. 15,000/- p.a. The Tribunal applied the multiplier in terms of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in reference to the age of the deceased i.e. 17 and assessed the loss of income at Rs. 1,70,000/-. The learned Tribunal further held that after the marriage of Smt Jyoti, her maternal relatives were no longer her dependents and accordingly they were not entitle to any compensation under the head of loss of income. Accordingly, the Tribunal held them entitled to receive compensation only under the head of loss of love and affection. The amount under this head was quantified at Rs. 15,000/-. 11. While deciding the Claim Application No. 457/2004 the non claimant Laxmi Narayan (father in law of Smt. Jyoti) was held to be dependent upon Smt. Jyoti and compensation of Rs. 140000/- was awarded to him on the ground of loss of income. He was further awarded Rs. 3000/- under the head of loss of service. A sum of Rs. 2000/- was awarded under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 140000/- was awarded to him on the ground of loss of income. He was further awarded Rs. 3000/- under the head of loss of service. A sum of Rs. 2000/- was awarded under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- was granted in the claim with interest @ 8%. 12. The Insurance Company appellant has approached this Court by way of these two appeals assailing the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal in the aforementioned two claim applications. 13. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the claim application was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus no award under the head of loss of love, affection and service is permissible because the claims filed under his provision are governed by the second schedule which does not provide for any compensation under this head. He further submitted that the Tribunal itself held that Laxmi Narayan continued to operate the joint grocery business even after the death of Mukesh. He urged that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the contribution of Laxmi Narayan in the income of the shop while assessing the award. He urged that as per the statement of A.W. 1 Laxmi Narayan, the claimed income of Mukesh by running the grocery business was around Rs. 100 to 125/- per day. Devkishan, A.W. 2 admitted in his cross examination that Laxmi Narayan also used to participate in the grocery business. The Tribunal itself held that the business continued even after the death of Mukesh. Therefore, as per him, the finding regarding the income generated in the grocery shop by the contribution of the deceased Mukesh being Rs. 2400/- per month is incorrect and excessive. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in applying the multiplier of 18 while assessing the loss of income. He further contended that Laxmi Narayan was not entitled to any compensation on account of the death of Smt. Jyoti under the head of loss of income. Thus, he prayed that the compensation be suitably reduced by taking into account the above factors. 14. Per contra Mr. Manish Pitaliya, learned counsel for the claimants contended that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1925 the property of a Hindu woman dying intestate devolves firstly upon the sons and daughters and the husband. Thus, he prayed that the compensation be suitably reduced by taking into account the above factors. 14. Per contra Mr. Manish Pitaliya, learned counsel for the claimants contended that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1925 the property of a Hindu woman dying intestate devolves firstly upon the sons and daughters and the husband. He submitted that Laxmi Narayan is the legal heir of Mukesh being his father. Thus, the property of Smt. Jyoti who died intestate and issue-less and as her husband also passed away would devolve upon Laxmi Narayan as per Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act. He submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the father and mother of Smt. Jyoti but in a contradictory finding recorded at para 20, the Tribunal observed that they are not entitled to any compensation except under the head of loss of love and affection. He thus submitted that the award deserves to be modified appropriately and the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was awarded to the parents of Smt. Jyoti should be awarded to Laxmi Narayan. He further submitted that in reply to the claim application, the Insurance Company did not dispute the fact that the claimant No. 1 is a legal heir of the deceased. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Montford Brothers of St.Gabriel vs. United India Insurance reported in 2014(1) ACTC (SC) 255, he prayed that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise this argument in the appeal. He thus submitted that no reduction is called for in the award. 15. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned award and the record. 16. Firstly, the question regarding the entitlement of Laxmi Narayan who was impleaded as a non claimant in the claim application No. 457/2004 to receive compensation upon the death of Smt. Jyoti needs to be considered. It is not disputed that Mukesh as well as Jyoti died intestate and issue less thus as per Section 15(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act the only Class-I legal heir who remained behind Jyoti would be Laxmi Narayan i.e. the father of Mukesh. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act deals with General Rules of succession in the case of males and reads as under:- "8. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act deals with General Rules of succession in the case of males and reads as under:- "8. General rules of succession in the case of males.-The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:- (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased." 17. Section 15 prescribes General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus:- "15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus:- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) xxx." 18. Thus, as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act the estate of an issue-less widow devolves on the heirs of the husband and in absence of such heirs, it devolves upon her mother and father. As Smt. Jyoti was not having any issue and as her husband also expired, her estate would devolve upon the legal heirs of her husband as per Section 15(1)(b). 19. As Laxmi Narayan, the father survived Mukesh, he would be the only remaining heir of second category and would be entitled to receive the estate of Jyoti upon her intestate death. Had it been the case that Laxmi Narayan expired, then the estate would devolve upon Jyoti's father and mother. 20. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in observing that the parents of Smt. Jyoti are not entitled to receive any compensation under the head of loss of income upon her death. However, it appears that the Tribunal inadvertently and contrary to this finding, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the parents of Smt. Jyoti vide para No. 32 of the award. 21. The argument advanced by Mr. However, it appears that the Tribunal inadvertently and contrary to this finding, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the parents of Smt. Jyoti vide para No. 32 of the award. 21. The argument advanced by Mr. U.C.S.Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant that award of compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is not permissible in claims filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act carries force. The claims filed under Section 163A of the Act are required to be assessed as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no provision in this schedule for grant of compensation under the head of loss of love, affection and service. Thus, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the said head being Rs. 12400/- in Claim Application No. 373/2004 and Rs. 50,000/- in Claim Application No. 457/2004 deserve to be deducted from the awards. 22. Coming to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the loss of income caused to the claimant by the death of Mukesh as Rs. 2400/- per month. The fact regarding the deceased participating in the family grocery business is not disputed but is rather amply proved from the material available on record. The incident occurred in the year 2004, therefore, the contribution of a young man aged 28 to 29 years by doing the grocery business at Rs. 2400/- per month cannot be held to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. Thus, the argument advanced by Mr. U.C.S.Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of income caused by the Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of income caused by the death of Mukesh to be Rs. 2400/- per month is unacceptable on the face of the record. The other criterion applied by the Tribunal for assessing the award have not been challenged. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation under the head of loss of income is just and proper. 23. Accordingly, these appeals stand partly allowed. The award dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. Chittorgarh is now modified as below:- In Claim Application No. 373/2004, the claimant Laxmi Narayan would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,47,600/- with interest @ 8% as directed by the learned Tribunal. 23. Accordingly, these appeals stand partly allowed. The award dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. Chittorgarh is now modified as below:- In Claim Application No. 373/2004, the claimant Laxmi Narayan would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,47,600/- with interest @ 8% as directed by the learned Tribunal. In Claim Application No. 457/2004 the non claimant Laxmi Narayan shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest @ 8%. However, before disbursing the due amount of compensation in this claim, the Tribunal shall ascertain about the current position of the parties, and if any change in the status has occasioned, then the award shall be disbursed in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. 24. The appeals stands disposed of accordingly. Record be sent back.