JUDGMENT : SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. The insurer is aggrieved with the award dated 28.07.2014 passed in MACT Case No. 08 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim at Gangtok. By the impugned award, a sum of Rs. 7,06,300 has been awarded as compensation to Respondents 1 and 2 by the Tribunal with interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 2. Respondents 1 and 2/Claimants are wife and minor son of deceased Vibhisan Pradhan, who died in the motor accident on 17.12.2013. He was aged about 25 years. He himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He was earning Rs. 3,325/- per month. On his death, Respondents 1 and 2 filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Tribunal held that the liability to pay compensation was that of insurance company (Appellant herein). The Tribunal, holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,325/- per month, applied multiplier of 18 and after deducting 1/3rd, awarded Rs. 4,78,800/- towards Loss of Earning. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 25,000/- as Funeral Expenses; Rs. 2,500/- as Loss of Estate; Rs. 1,00,000/- as Loss of Consortium; and over and above, Rs. 1,00,000/- as Loss of Non-pecuniary damages to the Respondents/Claimants. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,06,300/- as compensation to Respondents 1 and 2/Claimants on account of death of deceased Vibhisan Pradhan in the said accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 21.04.2014, till realization. 3. Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has not disputed the liability of the Appellant to pay compensation. He has also not disputed the amount towards Loss of Earning, i.e. Rs. 4,78,800/-. He has vehemently argued that as the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act, the amount towards Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate and Loss of Consortium should have been strictly on the basis of structured formula as is contained in the Second Schedule prepared under Section 163A. He also argued that after directing payment on account of Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate and Loss of Consortium, a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards Loss of Non-pecuniary damages was wholly unjustified. He also argued that after directing payment on account of Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate and Loss of Consortium, a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards Loss of Non-pecuniary damages was wholly unjustified. He relied on the decisions of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gurumallamma: 2009 (9) SCALE 764 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chacko: 2012 (1) TAC 464 (Kerala). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Rathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimants, has opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: (2004) 5 SCC 385 , it was held that the remedy for payment of compensation both under Sections 163A and 166 being final and independent of each other as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder simultaneously. One, thus, must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under Section 163A or under Section 166 of the Act, but not under both. Section 163A, which has an overriding effect, provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured-formula basis. In Section 163A, the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force” has been used, which goes to show that Parliament intended to insert a non obstante clause of a wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. 7. In Gurumallamma (supra), it was held that “Section 163A was inserted by Act No. 54 of 1994 as a special measure to ameliorate the difficulties of the family members of a deceased who died in use of a motor vehicle. It contains a non-obstante clause. It makes the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorized insurer liable to pay in the case of death, the amount of compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule to his legal heirs. The Second Schedule provides for the amount of compensation for third party Fatal Accident/Injury Cases Claims. It contains a non-obstante clause. It makes the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorized insurer liable to pay in the case of death, the amount of compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule to his legal heirs. The Second Schedule provides for the amount of compensation for third party Fatal Accident/Injury Cases Claims. It provides for the age of the victim and also provides for the multiplier for arriving at the amount of compensation which became payable to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased depending upon his annual income. The Second Schedule furthermore provides that in a case of fatal accident, the amount of claim shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred upon himself, had he been alive. It provides for the amount of minimum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. It furthermore provides for payment of general damages as specified in Note 3 thereof”. 8. In Chacko (supra), scope of Section 163A was considered by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in light of the following questions:- (i) How is the amount payable in the case of death under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (‘the Act’ hereafter) to be ascertained? (ii) Are the Tribunals to employ the multiplier-multiplicand method to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable in the case of death under the Second Schedule also? (iii) For what purpose is the “multiplier” furnished in the chart/table in the Second Schedule? (iv) Even in a claim under Section 163-A are the claimants/legal heirs bound to prove the extent of dependency and loss? (v) Is negligence or contributory negligence relevant in a claim under Section 163-A? (vi) Can the Schedule to 163-A be ignored or disregarded while ascertaining quantum of compensation under Section 163-A? (vii) Can the quantum of compensation payable in the case of death be ascertained independently without resort to the Second Schedule in a claim under Section 163-A? The High Court, while considering the above questions, held vide paragraphs 21 and 23 in the following manner:- “21. What we intend to note is that a fixed amount in accordance with the Second Schedule alone shall be ordered to be paid under Section 163-A, whatever be the actual loss. The High Court, while considering the above questions, held vide paragraphs 21 and 23 in the following manner:- “21. What we intend to note is that a fixed amount in accordance with the Second Schedule alone shall be ordered to be paid under Section 163-A, whatever be the actual loss. Even if the actual loss is much greater, for one who chooses to claim under Section 163-A, this is the only amount that shall be payable. Section 163-A offers a package in full settlement of the claim of compensation. A claimant at his option can claim the amount under Section 163-A. If such a claim is staked, what ever the actual loss (whether the actual loss be more or less) he can get only the amount prescribed under the Second Schedule. XXX XXX XXX XXX 23. There is a contention strenuously urged that the Second Schedule should not be rigidly followed. We fail to understand this contention. Look at the language of Section 163-A. The amount that would be payable is prescribed (indicated) under the Second Schedule. Without the Second Schedule, Section 163-A will come to a grinding halt and the Section cannot be worked. In a claim under Section 166, the Second Schedule can be used as a guide. But without a valid and binding Second Schedule, Section 163-A cannot operate. There must therefore be a valid Second Schedule to decide amounts payable under 163-A. To us it appears that it would be puerile to accept the validity of Section 163-A without an effective schedule. The scheme of Section 163-A would be lost if there is no valid schedule. Section 163-A cannot be worked if there is no schedule which can be followed rigidly.” 9. It is, thus, clear that it is for the claimants to select as to which provision they would resort to. If they select to resort to the provision of Section 163A, a fixed amount in accordance with the Second Schedule alone shall be ordered to be paid under Section 163A irrespective of the loss sustained by them. The amount of compensation ultimately determined under Section 163A would be in full and final settlement of the claim for compensation and any amount in deviation thereof would not be held to be correctly awarded to them. The amount of compensation ultimately determined under Section 163A would be in full and final settlement of the claim for compensation and any amount in deviation thereof would not be held to be correctly awarded to them. I am in full agreement with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court that without the Second Schedule, Section 163A would remain unworkable and the quantum of compensation payable under Section 163A cannot be worked out without resorting to the Second Schedule. 10. Now, coming to the case in hand, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, whereas according to the Second Schedule, it will not go beyond Rs. 2,000/-. The Tribunal has not assigned any reason for awarding the said amount under the aforesaid head. 11. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Loss of Consortium. This appears to have been awarded in terms of the judgment of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 . Mr. Bhutia has argued that when the claim petition itself was filed under Section 163A, the ratio laid down in Rajesh (supra) would not be applicable in this case as Rajesh (supra) was not a claim filed under Section 163A and it was a claim filed under Section 166. 12. The argument appears to be correct in light of the two independent provisions of the Act, one under Section 163A and the other under Section 166. When the claim was filed under Section 163A, the Tribunal ought to have followed the provision contained in the Second Schedule, as in such cases, the ratio relating to a claim under Section 166 would not apply. Thus, the amount awarded under this head was not correct. I am of the view that the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Loss of Consortium. 13. Mr. Bhutia lastly contended that the Tribunal vide paragraph 15 has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Loss of Non-pecuniary damages. His contention was that when the Tribunal has already awarded various amounts towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium as also the Loss of Estate, there was no proprietary in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/-, saying it to be the Non-pecuniary damages. 14. Mr. Bhutia lastly contended that the Tribunal vide paragraph 15 has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Loss of Non-pecuniary damages. His contention was that when the Tribunal has already awarded various amounts towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium as also the Loss of Estate, there was no proprietary in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/-, saying it to be the Non-pecuniary damages. 14. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.: (1995) 1 SCC 551 , it was held that Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant towards: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. It was further held that the amount of compensation for Non-pecuniary damages is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that the different circumstances have been taken into consideration. 15. In the instant case, as stated above, the Tribunal, on the one hand, already awarded compensation towards the Loss of Estate and Loss of Consortium and, on the other hand, it also awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Non-pecuniary damages, which appears to be a repetition. That apart, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for awarding this amount and has simply said that considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, the same is allowed. This deserves to be set aside in view of R.D. Hattangadi (supra). 16. 1,00,000/- towards Non-pecuniary damages, which appears to be a repetition. That apart, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for awarding this amount and has simply said that considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, the same is allowed. This deserves to be set aside in view of R.D. Hattangadi (supra). 16. I, therefore, re-compute the compensation as follows:- (i) Loss of Earning Rs.4,78,800.00 (ii) Funeral Expenses Rs.2,000.00 (iii) Loss of Estate Rs.2,500.00 (iv) Loss of Consortium Rs.5,000.00 Total Rs.4,88,300.00 The Respondents 1 and 2/Claimants shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 4,88,300/- as compensation on account of death of deceased Vibhisan Pradhan in the motor accident. They shall also be entitled to receive interest @10% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 4,88,300/- from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. 17. The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 18. There shall be no order as to costs.