Judgment : This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the State Transport Corporation, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri, which figured as the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.155/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Krishnagiri against the award dated 02.06.2010 made in the above said MCOP. 2. The respondents herein filed the above said MCOP No.155/2009 claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as compensation for the death of Basha, the husband of the first respondent herein/father of the respondents 2 and 3 herein/son of the 4th respondent herein. The claim was made based on their contention that on 24.06.2006 at about 6.30 a.m, the above said Basha was walking on the left side of the road in Attibele near Pattallamman Cross on the Bangalore - Hosur stretch of National Highway No.7 and at that point of time, the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-29 N-1692 belonging to the appellant transport corporation came there driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it hit the pedestrian Basha, causing fatal injuries leading to his death. It was also contended by them in their claim petition that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and was a businessman doing seasonal business in coconut, mango and scrap iron from which he was earning an income of Rs.3,300/- per month and that the respondents herein/claimants, being the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased, lost their financial support from the deceased consequent to his death in the said accident. Based on the said averments, the respondents herein calculated the total amount of compensation to which they were entitled at Rs.31,25,200, but they restricted their claim to Rs.8,00,000/- only. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant transport corporation admitting the accident, but denying the contentions of the respondents that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. On the other hand, it was contended by the appellant transport corporation in its counter that the deceased Basha, suddenly attempted to cross road from center median towards the left side of the road and thereby came into contact with the right side indicator of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation resulting in the injuries leading to his death. Based on the above said contention, the appellant transport corporation contended that the appellant transport corporation was not liable to pay any compensation, as there was no negligence or want of care on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. It also contended that the amount claimed as compensation was highly excessive and exorbitant. 4. In the trial before the Tribunal, the first respondent/first claimant figured as the sole witness (PW1) on the side of the claimants and four documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A4 on their side. The driver of the bus, by name Venkatraman, figured as the sole witness (RW1) on the side of the transport corporation and no document was marked on its side. 5. The Tribunal, based on the evidence, held that the accident was proved to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver. It assessed the age of the deceased at 38 years and his income at Rs.3,300/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses, selected and adopted 15' as the appropriate multiplier and arrived at a sum of Rs.4,45,500/- as compensation for pecuniary loss caused to the respondents herein. Adding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent herein, Rs.5,000/- towards loss to the estate and another Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal arrived at the figure Rs.4,65,500/- as the amount to which the respondents herein/claimants were entitled as compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an award directing the appellant transport corporation to pay the said amount together with an interest on the said amount calculated from the date of filing of the MCOP till the date of deposit at the rate of 6% per annum. In the award, the Tribunal also provided for the apportionment of the compensation among the respondents herein/claimants. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award both in respect of fixation of the liability and also in respect of quantum, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant transport corporation on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award both in respect of fixation of the liability and also in respect of quantum, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant transport corporation on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver is liable to be interfered with? 2) Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant requiring downward revision? 8. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 9. The first and foremost contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation was at fault in so far as he drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Basha causing fatal injuries leading to his death. It is an admitted fact that an accident took place at about 6.30 a.m on 24.06.2006 at Attibele, Pattalamman Cross on the Bangalore – Hosur stretch of NH-7 and that in the said accident, a pedestrian by name Basha, was hit by the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-29 N-1692 belonging to the appellant transport corporation. It has also been proved that the said Basha, who was moved to the hospital after the said accident died on the way to the hospital. Copy of the postmortem examination certificate marked as Ex.A2 shows that the death of Basha was due to the injuries sustained by him in the above said accident. A case came to be registered on the file of Attibele Police Station in F.I.R. No.100/2006 against the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-29 N-1692. 10. The driver of the bus by name Venkatraman, who deposed as RW1, admitted that his bus met with an accident at Attibele, Pattalamman Temple in the early morning hours of 24.06.2006. However, he would furnish the time of accident as 5.30 hours as against 6.30 hours, the time mentioned in the FIR. No.TN-29 N-1692. 10. The driver of the bus by name Venkatraman, who deposed as RW1, admitted that his bus met with an accident at Attibele, Pattalamman Temple in the early morning hours of 24.06.2006. However, he would furnish the time of accident as 5.30 hours as against 6.30 hours, the time mentioned in the FIR. By his evidence he has admitted that the bus that was driven by him from Bangalore to Hosur, hit the pedestrian at Attibele Pattalamman koil. But at the same time, he has made an attempt to show that there was no negligence on his part and on the other hand, the deceased suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident due to his own negligence. A cursory glance at the testimony of RW1 will show that he had come to the Tribunal to depose denying even the fact that a case was registered against him for causing the accident leading to the death of a human being by his rash and negligent driving of the bus. 11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there was an accident, which took place at about 6.30 hours on 24.06.2006 at Attibele near Pattalamman Koil, in which late Basha, a pedestrian, was hit by the bus. The further fact that the said Basha, who sustained injuries in the accident, was taken to the hospital and on the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries is also an admitted one. As such, it remains an admitted fact that bus bearing Regn. No.TN-29 N-1692 was the only vehicle involved in the accident. The deceased, who was a pedestrian, was hit by the bus and sustained the injuries leading to his death. Whether the driver of the bus was at fault or the deceased was at fault? - is quite immaterial, because the claim has been made not under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows: 163 – A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formuala basis. - is quite immaterial, because the claim has been made not under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows: 163 – A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formuala 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 of 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. (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. It says that in case of an accident resulting in death or permanent disablement, claim can be made on the structured formula as per the schedule, in which event, the claimants shall not be required to either plead or prove fault or negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. 13. But such a benevolent provision, by judicial pronouncement, is restricted in its application to the persons having annual income not more than Rs.40,000/-. If it is proved that the claimants are entitled to make a claim based on such structured formula, then they need not either plead or prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, for which the owner/insured, is sought to be held responsible under the said section. If it is proved that the claimants are entitled to make a claim based on such structured formula, then they need not either plead or prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, for which the owner/insured, is sought to be held responsible under the said section. In such cases, the following aspects alone are required to be proved: (1) The claimant’s entitlement to make a claim under the structured formula; and (2) A road accident took place, which resulted in death or permanent disablement. They can claim compensation without even pleading and without proving even if it is pleaded, that the accident was due to the fault on the part of anybody. A clear reading of the said section will show that, even the appellant against whom the claim is made, cannot take a plea that the accident did not take place due to any of his fault or fault on the part of its driver. As such, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver is unnecessary for the disposal of the case. 14. De horsthe finding, the respondents are entitled to claim compensation from the appellant transport corporation, who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, which resulted in the death of Basha, since the income of the deceased, as per their stand, is a little below Rs.40,000/- per annum. In fact, the appellant transport corporation also has not contended that the deceased was having an income of more than Rs.40,000/- per annum and hence the respondents could not make a claim under the "no fault liability" clause found under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the other hand, the appellant transport corporation itself has contended in its counter statement that the monthly income of the deceased Basha was even below Rs.3,000/-. The said contention amounts to an admission that the respondents are entitled to make a claim based on the "no fault liability" clause found in Section 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, this court answers question No.1 that the finding of the Tribunal is unnecessary because, even otherwise, the respondents have proved their entitlement to recover compensation based on "no fault liability" clause found in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 15. Accordingly, this court answers question No.1 that the finding of the Tribunal is unnecessary because, even otherwise, the respondents have proved their entitlement to recover compensation based on "no fault liability" clause found in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 15. When a claim is made under Section 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the compensation has to be awarded in accordance with the table found in the schedule and the structural formula incorporated therein. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trilokchandra's case found that there were mistakes in noting the multipliers as against the particular age groups and it has been pointed out in a table provided in Sarla Verma’s case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 in column No.6. In the subsequent cases also, the Hon’ble supreme Court held that, in case of claims made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier indicated in column 4 of the table provided in the Sarla Verma’s case should be adopted and in case of claims made in respect of the death of persons aged below 16 years, irrespective of the section under which the claim was made whether under Section 166 or 163-A, 15' shall be the multiplier and in all other cases, if the claim is made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the table should be followed subject to the correction indicated in column 6 of Sarla Verma case. As per the corrected multipliers found in column 6 of Sarla Verma case, 15' shall be the multiplier to be applied for the persons in the age group of 36 years to 40 years. Though no birth certificate or school certificate was produced to prove the age of the deceased, based on the postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased Basha was fixed by the Tribunal at 38 years. In the absence of any other evidence, the reliance made by the Tribunal on the postmortem certificate cannot be found fault with. 16. A person aged about 38 years, can be expected to earn at least Rs.3,300/- as contended by the claimants. The Tribunal’s decision to accept the said contention based on the evidence of PW1 also cannot be found fault with. The annual income calculated at the rate of Rs.3,300/- per month comes to Rs.39,600/-. 16. A person aged about 38 years, can be expected to earn at least Rs.3,300/- as contended by the claimants. The Tribunal’s decision to accept the said contention based on the evidence of PW1 also cannot be found fault with. The annual income calculated at the rate of Rs.3,300/- per month comes to Rs.39,600/-. The table itself provides for a uniform deduction of personal and living expenses at 1/3rd of the annual income. The deduction of more amount or less amount depending on the number of dependents receiving financial support from the deceased would apply, only in case of claims made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, the claimants have to plead and prove the fault on the part of the respondents against whom the claim is made. If the formula incorporated in the table is applied, the annual income, namely Rs.39,600/- should be multiplied by the multiplier ‘15’ and if it is done, the product shall be Rs.5,94,000/-. As per the note appended to the table, from the said amount, 1/3rd shall be deducted towards peronal and living expenses of the victim, which he would have incurred towards himself had he been alive. Thus, after deducting Rs.1,98,000/-, the pecuniary damages as per the table, to which the respondents shall be entitled, shall be fixed at Rs.3,96,000/-. To the said amount, the other conventional damages found in the schedule alone should be added. They are Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, if the beneficiary is spouse Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate and a sum not exceeding Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses provided it is supported by vouchers. The 4th item medical expenses is not applicable to the case on hand, as the deceased died on the way to the hospital. Hence the conventional damages shall be the funeral expenses at Rs.2,000/-, loss of consortium to the first respondent at Rs.5,000/- and loss to the estate at Rs.2,500/-. If the above said conventional damages are added, the total amount of compensation shall be arrived at Rs.4,05,500/-. 17. The Tribunal committed an error in allowing a deduction of only 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses as against the 1/3rd deduction found in the schedule. If the above said conventional damages are added, the total amount of compensation shall be arrived at Rs.4,05,500/-. 17. The Tribunal committed an error in allowing a deduction of only 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses as against the 1/3rd deduction found in the schedule. It also awarded conventional damages for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses not in consonance with the table, forgetting the fact that the claim is one made under section 163-A and not under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be brought down to Rs.4,05,500/-, to make it in tune with the table and the notes found in the schedule. At the cost of repetition, the break up particulars are furnished here under: Compensation for loss of financial support to the respondents : Rs.3,96,000/- Loss of Consortium : Rs. 5,000/- Funeral Expenses : Rs. 2,000/- Loss of Estate : Rs. 2,500/- ---------------------- Total : Rs.4,05,500/- ---------------------- While coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding more amount than what could have been awarded under the schedule, this court takes note of the fact that the Tribunal has awarded an interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which has got to be increased to 7.5% per annum. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award of the tribunal is modified by reducing the total amount of compensation from Rs.4,65,500/- to Rs.4,05,500/- and at the same time increasing the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 7.5% per annum. Pursuant to the reduction made in the quantum, the shares of the respondents are altered by reducing the shares of the 1st and 4th respondents by Rs.10,000/- each and the shares of the 2nd and 3rd respondents by Rs.20,000/- each. Thus the apportionment shall stand altered as follows: 1st Respondent (1st Claimant) : Rs. 90,000/- 2nd Respondent (2nd Claimant) : Rs.1,30,000/- 3rd Respondent (3rd Claimant) : Rs.1,30,000/- 4th Respondent (4th Claimant) : Rs. 55,500/- However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.