JUDGMENT : MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants - Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in MACP No.1574 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. In the present appeal, the Insurance Company has restricted its claim to a sum of Rs.1,40,500/- with interest. 2. The facts of the case are that on 31.10.2006, deceased Dhanajiram Rathava was going with other passengers in Truck No.GJ-17-T-9727 which was fully loaded with iron plates and at about 11.00 p.m., when it reached near the place of accident, the driver of the Truck who was driving the Truck rashly and negligently could not control the Truck and dashed with backside of Tempo No. GJ-17-X 3160 and in the said accident, deceased and Sarojben died and other passengers sustained injuries. 2.1 The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein - original claimants preferred MACP No.1674 of 2006 claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest and costs. 2.2 The Tribunal by the judgment and award dated 25.11.2008 passed in MACP No.1574 of 2006 awarded the compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. 3. Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that initially, the claimants had filed the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter, they have converted the same under Section 163-A of the Act. Hence, under Section 163-A of the Act, the concept of actual income, prospective income and average income for calculating dependency loss to victims or heirs of deceased is not warranted and compensation has to be calculated as per Schedule on the basis of actual proved income only. He has further submitted that the income of Rs.2,000/- considered by the Tribunal as the actual income is erroneous as no documentary evidence was produced on the record to prove the income. He has further submitted that the multiplier of 16 awarded by the Tribunal is also erroneous. He has further submitted that as per Section 163-A of the Act, Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 16 years of multiplier = Rs.3,84,000/- less ?rd Rs.1,28,000/- and hence, Rs.2,56,000/- is payable as per Schedule and hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- as loss to estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. 4. Mr. The Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- as loss to estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. 4. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants has submitted that the award is just and proper. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is just and proper. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court. 5. I have gone through the award of the Tribunal. As far as the amount awarded of Rs.3,84,000/- under the head of dependency loss is concerned, I am of the opinion that if the income of the deceased as considered by the Tribunal at Rs.2000/- is taken, then the marginal amount ?th out of this amount should have been deducted. Therefore, the amount comes to Rs.3,07,000/- which would be just and proper instead of Rs.3,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as the petition was under Section 163-A of the Act. The amounts awarded under the other heads are just and proper. 6. In the result, the present appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. The original claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.3,29,000/- in all towards compensation instead of Rs.4,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. As observed earlier, in the present appeal, the Insurance Company has restricted its claim to Rs.1,40,500/- with interest. By order dated 23.1.2012, this Court permitted the claimants to withdraw the amount of compensation by keeping a balance of Rs.1,78,124/- and the Tribunal was directed to invest the said amount of Rs.1,78,124/- in any Nationalised Bank. Hence, the Tribunal is directed to make the payment to the claimants as referred above out of the amount invested and rest of the amount shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.