JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22/12/2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P. in MAC No. 47/2009, titled Smt. Bhawna Devi and others vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, for short “the Tribunal” whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,95,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award” for short. 2. The claimants, driver and insured have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained the finality so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimants had filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, for the grant of compensation, as per the break-ups, given in the claim petition. 4. The respondents resisted the claim petition and following issues came to be framed. (i) whether Jagdish died on 5.8.2009 at Lachori Tehsil Bhalei Distt. Chamba in a vehicular accident involving vehicle NO. HP73-7170 as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved ion affirmative, whether petitioners being dependants of deceased are entitled for compensation, if so, from which of the respondents? OPP. (iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR-3 to 6. (iv) Whether the petitioners are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing this petition. OPR 3 to 6. (v) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-1. (vi) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was being plied in contravention of conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-1. (vii) Relief. 5. The claimants have examined three witnesses and Smt. Bhawna Devi claimant No. 1, herself stepped into the witness-box as PW1. 6. The insurer has not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that Jagdish deceased died in the accident which was outcome of the use of a motor vehicle. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 by the Tribunal, are upheld. 8. Before I determine issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. 9. It was for the respondents to discharge the onus, have not led any evidence. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 by the Tribunal, are upheld. 8. Before I determine issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. 9. It was for the respondents to discharge the onus, have not led any evidence. However, I have gone through the claim petition. Admittedly, the accident was outcome of the use of a motor vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act has gone through the sea change by now. In the year 1994, an amendment was made and Section 163-A was introduced in the Act. The compensation payable under Section 163-A of the Act was not as an interim measure, but was final. 10. In case titled Surinder Kumar Arora and another vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla & Ors. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2241, it has been held that the claimant has option to seek compensation either under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Act. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment herein. “9. Admittedly, the petition filed by the claimants was under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. This is not in dispute. Therefore, it was the entire responsibility of the parents of the deceased to have established that respondent no.1 drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the fatal accident. Maybe, in order to help respondent no.1, the claimants had not taken up that plea before the Tribunal. Therefore, High Court was justified in sustaining the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. We make it clear that if for any reason, the claimants had filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Act, then the dicta of this Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. (supra) would have come to the assistance of the claimants. 10. In our view the issue that we have raised for our consideration is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). In the said decision the Court stated : "....Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act. Ltd. (supra). In the said decision the Court stated : "....Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle." 11. In case titled Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, the apex Court, in para 10 of the judgment it has been observed as under. “10. The 1988 Act gives choice to the claimants to seek compensation on structured formula basis as provided in Section 163A or make an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 under Section 166. The claimants have to elect one of the two remedies provided in Section 163A and Section 166. The remedy provided in Section 163A is not a remedy in addition to the remedy provided in Section 166 but it provides for an alternative course to Section 166. By incorporating Section 163A in the 1988 Act, the Parliament has provided the remedy for payment of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the 1988 Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, that the owner of a motor vehicle or authorised insurer shall be liable to pay compensation on structured formula basis as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The peculiar feature of Section 163A is that for a claim made thereunder, the claimants are not 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 or owners of the vehicle concerned. The peculiar feature of Section 163A is that for a claim made thereunder, the claimants are not 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 or owners of the vehicle concerned. The scheme of Section 163A is a departure from the general principle of law of tort that the liability of the owner of the vehicle to compensate the victim or his heirs in a motor accident arises only on the proof of negligence on the part of the driver. Section 163A has done away with the requirement of the proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle where the victim of an accident or his dependants elect to apply for compensation under Section 163A. When an application for compensation is made under Section 163A the compensation is paid as indicated in the Second Schedule. The table in the Second Schedule has been found by this Court to be defective to which we shall refer at a little later stage.” [Emphasis added] 12. The apex Court in case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and another reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 6694, in para 5 has observed as under. “5. We find difficult to accept the reasoning expressed by the Two-Judge Bench in Sinitha's case. In our view, the principle laid down in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala's case has not been properly appreciated or applied by the Bench. In fact, another Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 19.4.2002 had doubted the correctness of the judgment in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala's case and referred the matter to a Three- Judge Bench to examine the question whether claimant could pursue the remedies simultaneously under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Act. The Three- Judge Bench of this Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, 2004 5 SCC 385 made a detailed analysis of the scope of Sections 166 and 163-A and held that the remedy for payment of compensation both under Sections 163-A and 166 being final and independent of each other, as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder simultaneously. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, 2004 5 SCC 385 made a detailed analysis of the scope of Sections 166 and 163-A and held that the remedy for payment of compensation both under Sections 163-A and 166 being final and independent of each other, as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder simultaneously. The Court also extensively examined the scope of Section 163-A and held that Section 163-A was introduced in the Act by way of a social security scheme and is a Code by itself. The Court also held that Section 140 of the Act deals with interim compensation but by inserting Section 163-A, the Parliament intended to provide for making of an award consisting of a pre-determined sum without insisting on a long- drawn trial or without proof of negligence in causing the accident. The Court noticed that Section 163-A was inserted making a deviation from the common law liability under the Law of Torts and also in derogation of the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act. The Three-Judge Bench also held that Section 163-A has an overriding effect and provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. Sub- section (1) of Section 163-A contains a non-obstante clause, in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer is 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. The Court also held that the scheme of the provisions of Section 163-A and Section 166 are distinct and separate in nature. In Section 163-A, 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 the Parliament intended to insert a non-obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of. The above-mentioned Three-Judge Bench judgment was not placed before the learned Judges who decided the Sinitha's case.” [Emphasis added] 13. Accordingly, it is held that the claim petition was maintainable. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove issues No. 4 to 6, thus, the findings returned on these issues are upheld. Issue No.2. 14. It is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3300/- per month, i.e., Rs.39,600/- per annum, which comes below the cap fixed and provided under Section 163-A of the Act. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned award, needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 2 are upheld. 15. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank accounts, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 17. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.