JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D. C. Nath, the learned counsel for the appellant-State. Also heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents. 2. Both the appeals arising out of the same judgment are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala by the impugned judgment dated 30-1-2013 in T.S(MAC) No. 194 of 2009 has awarded a sum of Rs.3,32,600/- carrying interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in T.S(MAC) No. 194/2009. The prayer of the claimant for reviewing the judgment on the ground that the claim case ought to have tried and decided U/s 163-A, M.V. Act as the same was one filed under that section and not under Section 166 of the Act, was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 16-9-2013 of Civil Misc. Case No. 51 of 2013. 3. As already noticed, the award was apparently passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”). In the appeal filed by the State, which is MAC Appeal No.63/2013, the State is aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation so awarded, whereas in the appeal filed by the claimant-respondents being MAC Appeal No. 01/2014 they are aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act instead of Section 163-A of the Act under which they actually filed the claim petition. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the State-appellants submits that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to conclude its finding that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month during his lifetime, and the compensation awarded on the basis of such perverse finding on the income of the deceased cannot be sustained in law. On the other hand, Mr. D. K, Biswas, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent that had the Tribunal decided the claim petition U/s 163-A and not U/s 166 of the Act, the claimant-respondent would have been awarded a higher amount of compensation. As the claimant-respondent could not produce adequate evidence to substantiate her claim about the income of the deceased, submits the learned counsel for the claimant, the claimant deliberately had to file the claim petition U/s 163-A of the Act, which has been overlooked by the Tribunal thereby causing prejudice to her. 5. As the claimant-respondent could not produce adequate evidence to substantiate her claim about the income of the deceased, submits the learned counsel for the claimant, the claimant deliberately had to file the claim petition U/s 163-A of the Act, which has been overlooked by the Tribunal thereby causing prejudice to her. 5. I have seen the impugned judgment which clearly shows that the claim petition was indeed entertained by the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. In the original claim petition also, it was clearly indicated that the claimants had filed their claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act and not under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal has thus grossly erred in deciding the case of the claimant under Section 166 of the Act when the claim petition was actually filed by the claimant under Section 163-A of the Act. This is certainly a case of non-application of mind on the part of the Tribunal. Normally, on the admitted facts on record, the course of action open to this Court is to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh trial under Section 163-A of the Act, but as no challenge is made by the State-appellant in respect of the income and age of the deceased as found by the Tribunal, I do not think it necessary to remand the case to the Tribunal to avoid unnecessary delay and the compensation can be awarded by this Court on the basis of the structured formula prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Act. 6. The salient facts of the case may be noticed at this stage. On 01.03.2009 the deceased (Ram Krishna Shil) was hit by a Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No.TR-01-C-0869 near Gramin Bank when he was proceeding towards Battala from Milan Sangha. The said vehicle was said to be driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased died instantaneously due to the accident. The deceased is survived by his father and his sister. His father subsequently died during the pendency of the case. The sister of the deceased i.e. the appellant herein in the connected MAC Appeal No. 1/2014 i.e. Kumari Chandana Shill is thus the surviving claimant. The deceased died instantaneously due to the accident. The deceased is survived by his father and his sister. His father subsequently died during the pendency of the case. The sister of the deceased i.e. the appellant herein in the connected MAC Appeal No. 1/2014 i.e. Kumari Chandana Shill is thus the surviving claimant. As there is no dispute about the income which is determined by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- and the age of the deceased which was also found by the Tribunal to be 41 at the time of the accident, as already noted, I do not find any difficulty in applying the structured formula adumbrated in the Second schedule to the Act. Since the deceased was 41 years old at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 15 shall have to be adopted. Thus, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.3,000 x 12 = Rs.36,000/-, which, when multiplied by 15, will come to Rs.5,40,000/-. Another sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be added for the loss of love and affection, to which shall also be added Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses. The compensation payable to the claimant i.e. Rs.6,15,000/-, but, in terms of the Note to the Second Schedule, the compensation so arrived at shall have to be reduced by one/third in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Therefore, the total amount of compensation actually payable to the claimant will come to Rs. 6,15,000- Rs.2,05,000= Rs.4,10,000/-. The claimant shall thus be entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,10,000/-, which will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 7. The appellant-State is, therefore, directed to deposit Rs.4,10,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition with this Registry within three months for payment to the claimant-respondent. As and when the awarded amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the claimant-respondent as per usual arrangements without further reference from this Court. Any amount already paid to or deposited by, the claimant shall be adjusted accordingly. MAC Appeal No. 63 of 2013 is dismissed. MAC Appeal No.1 of 2014 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30-1-2013, therefore, stands modified in the manner and to the extent indicated above. Transmit the L.C. records to the Tribunal forthwith.