JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the pronouncement made by MACT-II, Chamba, upon MAC Petition No. 41/2016, wherein compensation amount of Rs. 6,40,800/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from, the date of petition till its realization, was assessed vis-à-vis the dependents, of deceased Neelam Singh, (i) the latter met with a fatal accident involving the ill-fated vehicle, vehicle whereof at the relevant time, hence was driven by him. The apposite indemnificatory liability was fastened upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended with much vigor before this Court, that it was incumbent, upon, the learned Tribunal concerned, to strike issue(s) with respect to the rash and negligent driving of the ill-fated vehicle, by the deceased, (i) especially with a contention occurring in the reply furnished by the insurer, to the apposite claim petition, of, the ill-fated accident involving the offending vehicle, occurring, solitarily on account of the driver being negligent in driving it. He submits that want of the learned MACT concerned, to strike issues, in respect of the aforesaid contention, reared by the insurer in its reply furnished, to the apposite claim petition, especially with concomitantly no findings standing returned thereon, has hence vitiated its pronouncement. He submits that the claim for compensation, reared in the claim petition, by the dependents of the deceased, warrants non-ascription(s) therein of commission, of, tort of negligence by the driver concerned, non-ascription whereof, though, are not borne therein (ii) yet, conspicuously, with the learned Tribunal, holding the owner of the offending vehicle AND its insurer to be jointly and severally liable, for making the apposite indemnifications, vis-à-vis the claimants, thereupon (iii) for the insurer being empowered to exculpate the apposite liability, liability whereof is fastenable only upon clinching dis-affirmative findings being returned qua the purported tort feasor, (iv) thereupon, the learned Tribunal, was, reinforcingly enjoined to strike issue(s) qua the aforesaid factum probandum also was enjoined to return clinching findings thereon. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the Insurer, is thoroughly mis-placed, given its carrying vigor, only (v) upon the claimants’ instituting a petition cast under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (vi) contrarily the aforesaid submission is not amenable for acceptance, given its vigor being denuded, by the provisions embodied in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherewithin stands embodied, the trite principle of “no fault liability”, with the concomitant effect, of non-imperativeness, of the dependents of the deceased driver, to either plead lack of apposite negligence of the concerned in driving the offending vehicle or to prove the same, (vi) besides no obligation is cast upon the Tribunal, to strike issues thereon, nor it is entailed with any trite legal necessity, to return findings thereon. Also contentions in respect thereof, reared in the reply furnished by the Insurer, likewise did not warrant, striking of any issue(s) thereon, nor also any findings were enjoined to be returned thereon. Reiteratedly, hence the aforesaid provisions, of the Motor Vehicles Act, are statutorily carved exception(s), to the general principle of law, embodied in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, qua fastening of the apposite joint and several liability, by the learned Tribunal concerned, upon the owner of registered vehicle AND upon Insurer thereof, hence acquiring validation, only with cogent evidence existing on record, AND its making vivid disclosure(s), of, the purported tort feasor(s), not being negligent, in driving the relevant vehicle AND thereafter clinching findings in tandem therewith being returned. 3. Moreover, the aforesaid inference(s) acquires immense vigor from a judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2013, paragraphs 8 and 9 whereof are extracted hereinafter: “8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A 2). This is made explicit by Section 163A 2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163 of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claim of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.” 4. The learned counsel for the Insurer has contended with vigor, that uncontrovertedly with the petition preferred, by the dependents, of deceased Neelam Singh, (i) hence being constituted, under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (ii) thereupon the mandate of second schedule thereof, was applicable, for computing compensation, (iii) whereas the learned Tribunal, proceeding to apply the multiplier method, for making computation(s) of compensation, has hence committed a gross error. The aforesaid submission is well-founded, given, the apposite petition being nomenclatured, as one, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, with the mandate of the second schedule being attractable vis-à-vis the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, conspicuously for making determinations of just and fair compensation amount vis-à-vis the claimants, (iv) thereupon it was not legally sagacious for the learned Tribunal concerned to proceed to apply the multiplier method, for, computing compensation vis-à-vis dependents of the deceased. The computation(s) , of, compensation amount, made by the learned Tribunal concerned, with its applying the multiplier method, for computing compensation, are quashed and set aside. The computation(s) , of, compensation amount, made by the learned Tribunal concerned, with its applying the multiplier method, for computing compensation, are quashed and set aside. In making the aforesaid computation, the learned MACT concerned, has shown gross lack of knowledge of the apposite provisions of law and its Presiding Officer, shall, in future, ensure that he omits to commit any gross error as he has done hereat. On applying the apposite portion, of, the second schedule, (v) thereupon with the deceased at the relevant time being aged 43 years, hence, the multiplier of 15 is applicable hereat. Applying the relevant applicable multiplier of 15, the claimants are entitled to compensation, of, Rs. 3,96,000/- (Rs. 3300-1/3=2200x12x15) + Rs.2000/- towards funeral charges + Rs. 5000/- towards consortium alongwith 7.5 % interest per annum, from, the date of institution of the petition till its realization. 6. Consequently, only the aforesaid indemnificatory liability(s) shall be borne by the Insurer of the offending vehicle. The aforesaid amount of compensation, shall carry, interest @ 7.5% per annum, from, the date of the institution of the petition till its realization. It is clarified that the assessment(s) made by the learned Tribunal concerned, under heads “loss of Consortium” and “loss of love and affection” are quashed and set aside. 7. In aftermath, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent above. The claimants’ are held entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 4,03,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition, till its realization, in the following terms: 1. Funeral charges Rs. 2000/- 2. Consortium Rs. 5000/- 3. Compensation on account of death of deceased Incomer per month- Rs. 3300/-Incomer per year after deducting personal and living expenses= Rs. 3300-1/3 =2200x12=26,400/- Multiplier of 15= 15x26,400=3,96,000/- (to be apportioned equally amongst all the claimants) 4. Total Rs.3,96,000+2000+5000=4,03,000/- All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.