JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company as well as Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In this regard, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is allowed to make correction in the Vakalatnama. 2. No one appears for the respondent No. 5. 3. The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 13/2017, by which Rs. 12,38,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the respondents/claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till final payment. 4. The appellant's counsel submits that the challenge has been made to the impugned Judgment and Award, basically, on the ground that as the claim petition had been made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned Tribunal could not have awarded compensation beyond the benefits provided under the Second Schedule of the Act. He submits that awarding of compensation under the heads under Section 166 of the MV Act could not be made applicable to a claim made under Section 163-A. He also submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the future prospect that can be given in the present case is 40% of the salary of the deceased. He also submits that compensation for funeral expenses and loss of estate cannot exceed Rs. 15,000/-. 5. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in giving compensation under various heads. He however fairly admits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Others , future prospect would have to be limited to 40% of the income of the deceased. In respect of funeral expenses and loss of estate, compensation would have to be awarded as per the guidelines passed in Pranay Sethi and Others . 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased died in an accident involving Sumo Maxi Cab bearing registration No. MZ01 7009 on 18.01.2017. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased died in an accident involving Sumo Maxi Cab bearing registration No. MZ01 7009 on 18.01.2017. The claimants made an application under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988 before the learned MACT, Aizawl. 8. The learned MACT, Aizawl vide its judgment and Award dated 05.12.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 13/2017, awarded compensation of Rs. 12,38,000/- along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, the calculation of which is reproduced here below:- "As such the compensation is as follows:- (1) Annual Income Rs. 3000x12=Rs. 36,000/- (2) Addition of 50% for future prospect Rs. (36000x50=18000)/100 (3) Loss of Income Rs. (36000+18000x16x3)/4=648,000/- (4) Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- (5) Loss of love and affection for 3 minor children Rs. 3,00,000/- (6) Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000/- (7) Loss of Estate Rs. 1,00,000/- (8) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000/- Total compensation Awarded Rs. 12,38,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs thirty eight thousand) only." 9. In the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Others -vs- United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 , Puttamma & Others -vs- K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another, (2013) 15 SCC 45 and in National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi & Others , Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the Apex Court has held that the principles relating to determination of liability of quantum of compensation, were different for claims made under Section 163-A and claims made under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988. There is no specific observation in the above cases that compensation cannot be given with regard to conventional heads in respect of a claim made under Section 163-A. The Apex Court basically held that a claimant cannot pursue his remedies simultaneously under Section 163-A and under Section 166 of the MV Act. Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court finds that there is no bar for awarding compensation under the conventional heads, which are not reflected in the Second Schedule with regard to a claim made under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988. Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court finds that there is no bar for awarding compensation under the conventional heads, which are not reflected in the Second Schedule with regard to a claim made under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988. As per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi & Others, the Apex Court has held that where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In the present case, the deceased being below 40 years and as he was a driver on a fixed income, the learned Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the actual income of the deceased instead of 40% for future prospects. The Apex Court, in Pranay Sethi & Others has also put a cap of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses as per paragraph 59.8 of the said judgment. Accordingly, the award beyond Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses by the learned Tribunal would also have to be modified. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, the compensation payable to the respondents/claimants would be as follows:- (1) Annual Income Rs. 3000x12=Rs. 36,000/- (2) Addition of 40% for future prospect Rs. (36000x40=14,400)/ 100 (3) Loss of Income Rs. (36000+14400x16x3)/4=604,800/- (4) Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- (5) Loss of love and affection for 3 minor children Rs. 3,00,000/- (6) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (7) Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (8) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000/- Total compensation Awarded Rs. 10,74,800/- (Rupees Ten lakh seventy four thousand eight hundred) only. 11. In view of the reasons stated above, the appellant i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the total amount of Rs. 10,74,800/- (Rupees ten lakh seventy four thousand eight hundred) only, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment in favour of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, for onward disbursement to the claimants/respondents. Any amount already paid, should be adjusted against the total amount awarded herein. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 13/2017 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. 12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 13. Any amount already paid, should be adjusted against the total amount awarded herein. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 13/2017 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. 12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 13. Send back the LCRs. 14. The appellant is allowed to take back the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- deposited with the Registry at the time of filing the appeal.