JUDGMENT 1. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, assailing the Award dated 30.11.2009 passed by Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 178/2009, whereby, a total compensation of Rs. 1,94,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Narendra Singh Jatav. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that deceased Narendra Singh Jatav was working as conductor on Bus bearing registration No. MP-08-F-8815. On 24.3.2009 at about 6 am, the said bus was stationed on the common road opposite Surya Factory, when Narendra was cleaning the bus from the rear side, the driver of the bus drove it back side without applying indicator or horn, due to that Narendra sustained severe injuries in waist and legs. He was got admitted in Birla Hospital, Gwalior where during treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The Police Station Malanpur, District Bhind registered the case at Crime No. 41/2009. The appellant/claimant, who is elder brother of the deceased filed a claim case, in which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,94,000/- payable jointly and severely by the Insurance Company, driver and owner. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurance company has filed the instant appeal. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company that the Claims Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that Pooran Singh (elder brother of the deceased) was not dependent on the deceased and was living separately from the deceased, hence the claim petition at the instance of Pooran Singh was itself not maintainable and even if Pooran Singh (since dead) being legal representative of the deceased Narendra Singh is held entitled for amount of compensation, then the Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the 2/3rd dependency of the deceased's income. The deceased was unmarried person, therefore, looking to his prospective expenses on his own, the dependency ought to have been assessed on lower side. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award passed in Claim Case No. 178/2009 be set aside. 4. The Claims Tribunal in para 14 of its award has specifically held that deceased Narendra Singh had lost his parents and there is no one in his family except Pooran Singh, who is the elder brother of the deceased and is the only legal representative, who was being given money by the deceased out of his earning. 4. The Claims Tribunal in para 14 of its award has specifically held that deceased Narendra Singh had lost his parents and there is no one in his family except Pooran Singh, who is the elder brother of the deceased and is the only legal representative, who was being given money by the deceased out of his earning. The Tribunal in para 15 has further held that under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act there is a provision for payment of compensation to the legal representative or the victim, as the case may be. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable to indemnify the insured. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to differ from the finding arrived at by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable to indemnify the insured. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Pooran Singh (now dead) has filed cross-objection vide IA No.1870/2013, wherein it has been submitted that the accident took place on 24.3.2009, wherein brother of respondent No.1, Narendra Singh died. The claim was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tribunal has passed the award on 30th November, 2009 to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1. The deceased was working as conductor and was earning Rs.3300/- per month, but the Tribunal has assumed Rs.1500/- per month income of the deceased and applied multiplier of 16 by calculating the dependency of 2/3rd. The awarded amount is on lower side, hence prayed for awarding compensation of Rs. 2,53,400/-, in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal, with interest @ 12% per annum. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 reads as under: "163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be 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. Explanation.-For the purposes of this subsection, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be 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 of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for payment of compensation on structured formula basis, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation. 9. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,94,000/-, which in the considered view of this Court, is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. Hence, the cross-objection filed by the respondent-Pooran Singh vide IA No. 1870/2013 is dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. The appeal stands disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.-