Judgment 1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, “GSRTC”) has filed the present First Appeal being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 17.12.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh, in MAC Case No.1 of 1996. The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs.1,62,000/-in MAC Case No.1 of 1996 which was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant discussion is found in para-1 of the judgment and award which reads as under:- “1. The present claim for compensation u/s.163A has been filed by the parents of deceased Rameshbhai Jerambhai, a minor aged 14 years who died in the vehicular accident which occurred on 23-1-96 at about 13.00 hrs. in S.T. Bus Station, Visavadar. The claim for regular compensation has also been filed vide Claim Case No.279/96. The claimant has conceded to the disposal of the application for compensation u/s.163A as a final award and in that case he has withdrawn the aforesaid claim for compensation. The schedule appended to the amended Motor Vehicles Act speak about the amount of compensation in fatal cases awardable with respect to the persons upto 15 years on the basis of the minimum income of Rs.12,000/- to be Rs.2,40,000/-and, deducting 1/3rd amount therefrom, as provided for the purpose of self-spending, the net amount of compensation awardable comes to Rs.1,60,000/-(Rs.2,40,000/- minus Rs.80,000/-); added to that the amount of Rs.2,000/-by way of funeral expenses, as provided for in Clause 3(i) of general damages, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,62,000/-for which an award is passed for payment, with usual orders for costs and interest.” 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant GSRTC could not assail the judgment and award passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in view of the fact that the amount awarded by the Hon’ble Tribunal is on lower side than the amount provided for being awarded in the Schedule. So far as the decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (1) is concerned, which ofcourse is not applicable to the facts of the present case as submitted by the learned Advocate for the opponent, the amount would have been much higher than awarded by the Hon’ble Tribunal. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (1) is concerned, which ofcourse is not applicable to the facts of the present case as submitted by the learned Advocate for the opponent, the amount would have been much higher than awarded by the Hon’ble Tribunal. The only reason for which the opponents – original claimants will not be able to claim higher compensation is that they have not preferred cross-appeal. 3. In the result, the appeal fails. Hence, the same is dismissed.