JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by fastening liability to pay the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (fort short, the Act) claiming therein compensation on account of death of Puran Chand, who died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 19.5.2007 about 4.45 P.M. at a place known as Dobh, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba. The deceased was stated to be 31 years old and getting monthly salary of Rs.3300/- at the time of accident. 3. Since the learned Tribunal was not required to go into question of negligence, it proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 4,78,024/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of the award amount. 4. The instant appeal has been filed primarily on two grounds:- (i) a person could not be compensated for his own negligence: and (ii) the award is not in tune with the provisions of the Act. 5. Adverting to the first ground, the same is no longer res integra and not open to question in view of the judgment of Three-Judge bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and anr., (2018) ACJ 1 ., wherein it has clearly been held that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise defence of negligence as it would bring proceedings under Section 163-A at par with proceedings under Section 166, which would not only be self-contradictory, but also defeat the very legislative intention. In this context, it would be apposite to refer the relevant observations as contained in paras 5 to 9 of the judgment, which read as under:- 5. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 the issue before a three judge bench of this Court was with regard to the mutual exclusiveness of the provisions of Section 163A and Section 166 of the Act. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 the issue before a three judge bench of this Court was with regard to the mutual exclusiveness of the provisions of Section 163A and Section 166 of the Act. While dealing with the said question, this Court had the occasion to go into the reasons and objects for the incorporation of Section 140 and 163A of the Act which came in by subsequent amendments, details of which are being noted separately herein below. The Bench also took the view that while Section 140 of the Act deals with cases of interim compensation leaving it open for the claimant to agitate for final compensation by resort to the provisions of Section 166 of the Act, Section 163A of the Act provides for award of final compensation on a structured formula following the provisions of Second Schedule appended to the Act. Both Sections i.e. Sections 140 and 163A are based on the concept of ''no fault liability'' and have been enacted as measures of social security. It was further noted that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act the Tribunal may be required to adjudicate upon various disputed questions like age, income, etc. unlike in a proceeding under Section 140 of the Act. 6. Deepal Girishbhai Soni''s case (supra), in fact, arose out of a reference made for a decision on the correctness of the view expressed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and other, (2001) 5 SCC 175 that determination of compensation in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is final and further proceedings under Section 166 of the Act is barred. The opinion rendered in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra) contains an elaborate recapitulation of the reasons behind the enactment of Section 92A to 92E of the Old Act (i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) (corresponding to Sections 140 to 144 of the present Act) introducing for the first time the concept of ''no fault liability'' in departure from the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for death or permanent disablement caused on account of a motor vehicle accident. In the said report, there is a reference to the deliberations of the Committee constituted to review the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the suggestions of the Transport Development Council on the basis of which the draft Bill of 1994 was enacted, inter alia, to provide for: "(h) increase in the amount of compensation to the victims of hit-and-run cases; (k) a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational." 7. As observed in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra) one of the suggestions made by the Transport Development Council was "to provide adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into long drawn procedure." As a sequel to the recommendations made by the Committee and the Council, Section 140 was enacted in the present Act in place of Section 92A to 92E of the Old Act. Compensation payable thereunder, as under the repealed provisions, continued to be on the basis of no fault liability though at an enhanced rate which was further enhanced by subsequent amendments. Sections 140 and 141 of the present Act makes it clear that compensation payable thereunder does not foreclose the liability to pay or the right to receive compensation under any other provision of the Act or any other law in force except compensation awarded under Section 163A of the Act. Compensation under Section 140 of the Act was thus understood to be in the nature of an interim payment pending the final award under Section 166 of the Act. Section 163-A, on the other hand, was introduced in the New Act for the first time to remedy the situation where determination of final compensation on fault basis under Section 166 of the Act was progressively getting protracted. The Legislative intent and purpose was to provide for payment of final compensation to a class of claimants (whose income was below Rs.40,000/- per annum) on the basis of a structured formula without any reference to fault liability. In fact, in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra) the bench had occasion to observe that: "Compensation amount is paid without pleading or proof of fault, on the principle of social justice as a social security measure because of ever-increasing motor vehicle accidents in a fast-moving society. In fact, in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra) the bench had occasion to observe that: "Compensation amount is paid without pleading or proof of fault, on the principle of social justice as a social security measure because of ever-increasing motor vehicle accidents in a fast-moving society. Further, the law before insertion of Section 163-A was giving limited benefit to the extent provided under Section 140 for no-fault liability and determination of compensation amount on fault liability was taking a long time. That mis- chief is sought to be remedied by introducing Section 163-A and the disease of delay is sought to be cured to a large extent by afford- ing benefit to the victims on structured-formula basis. Further, if the question of determining compensation on fault liability is kept alive it would result in additional litigation and complications in case claimants fail to establish liability of the owner of the de- faulting vehicles." 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). 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 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims 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. 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. 6. Now, adverting to second ground qua quantum of compensation, at the out set, it would be noticed that the award passed by the learned Tribunal has in fact not been passed bearing in mind the provisions of Section 163-A read with second schedule of the Act. 7. The learned Tribunal without any basis has granted 30% notional increase towards future prospects and then deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses. Even the multiplier of 11 has wrongly been applied on the basis of age of the mother of the deceased. Besides that, the claimants have been held entitled to Rs.10,000/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs.10,000/- on account of love and affection, funeral expenses and consortium respectively contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 163-A read with second schedule of the Act. 8. As regards income of the deceased, the claimants have claimed that the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 3300/- while working as driver with the owner of the vehicle. Though, the owner of the vehicle has claimed that she was paying Rs. 2000/- per month to the deceased, however I really do not find any fault in the findings of the learned Tribunal, whereby it assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3300/- , more particularly, when the owner of the vehicle has failed to maintain and thereafter produce the accounts as required under Section 13-A of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 9. Similar issue came up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and others vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. 9. Similar issue came up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and others vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 11 SCC 201 , wherein like this case, neither of the the parties produced any document on record to prove the exact amount of wages being earned by the deceased at the time of accident and the learned Commissioner took into consideration the fact that the deceased was highly skilled workman and would often be required to undertake long journeys outside the State in the line of duty and worked out the wages to be Rs.10,000/- per month and the same were affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court by observing as under:- 28. Since neither of the parties produced any document on record to prove the exact amount of wages being earned by the deceased at the time of the accident, to arrive at the amount of wages, the learned Commissioner took into consideration the fact that the deceased was a highly skilled workman and would often be required to undertake long journeys outside the state in the line of duty, especially considering the fact that the vehicle in question had a registered National Route Permit. The wages of the deceased were accepted as Rs.4,000/- per month + daily bhatta of Rs.6,000/- per month, which amounts to a total of Rs.10,000/-. The High Court did not give any reason on which basis it interfered with the finding recorded by the Commissioner on the aspect of monthly wages earned by the deceased. The impugned judgment does not even mention what according to the High Court, the wages of the deceased were at the time of the accident. Such an unnecessary interference on part of the High Court was absolutely uncalled for, especially in light of the fact that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are old and have lost their elder son and they have become destitutes. 29. Such an unnecessary interference on part of the High Court was absolutely uncalled for, especially in light of the fact that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are old and have lost their elder son and they have become destitutes. 29. Further, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the onus is on the employer to maintain the register and records of wages, Section 13A of which reads as under: "13-A. Maintenance of registers and records- (1) Every employer shall maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of persons employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid to them, the deductions made from their wages, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. (2) Every register and record required to be maintained under this section shall, for the purposes of this Act, be preserved for a period of three years after the date of the last entry made therein." From a perusal of the aforementioned section it becomes clear that the onus to maintain the wage roll was on the employer, i.e. Respondent No.2. Since in the instant case, the employer has failed in his duty to maintain the proper records of wages of the deceased, the appellants cannot be made to suffer for it. 10. Similar reiteration of law can be found in a judgment rendered by this Court in Krishna Devi and ors. vs. Harjit Singh and anr., (2018) LatestHLJ 1196 (HP) , wherein it was observed as under:- 4. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion qua the statutory necessity of the employer to maintain, and, produce the records, with respect to the apt wages, defrayed by him to his employees, and, in case of omission, of, production thereof, before the Courts concerned, an, adverse inference being drawable against the owner, and, to a further conclusion qua thereupon, the, testifcation rendered by the dependents of the deceased, vis-a-vis, the per mensem salary of the latter, rather, warranting meteing of credence thereon, this Court is supported, by a judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court, in, a case titled as Jaya Biswal vs. IFFCO Toko General Insurance Co. Ltd, (2016) 11 SCC 201 , the relevant paragraph No. 29 whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:- 29. Ltd, (2016) 11 SCC 201 , the relevant paragraph No. 29 whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:- 29. Further, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the onus is on the employer to maintain the register and records of wages, Section 13A of which reads as under: "13-A. Maintenance of registers and records- (1) Every employer shall maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of persons employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid to them, the deductions made from their wages, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. (2) Every register and record required to be maintained under this section shall, for the purposes of this Act, be preserved for a period of three years after the date of the last entry made therein." From a perusal of the aforementioned section it becomes clear that the onus to maintain the wage roll was on the employer, i.e. Respondent No.2. Since in the instant case, the employer has failed in his duty to maintain the proper records of wages of the deceased, the appellants cannot be made to suffer for it. Consequently, the per mensem salary of the deceased, is, computed as Rs.10,000/-, hence, the comepnsation amount is determined as under:- Age of the deceased at the time of accident 60 years Factors to be applied 117.41 Income of the deceased at the time of accident Rs.10,000/- per month Compensation amount calculated Rs.5000x117.41= Rs.5,87,050/- Expenditure of Funeral Rs.5000/- Total Compensation Rs. 5,87,050+5000= Rs.5,92,050/- (Rs. Five Lacs ninety two thousand and fifty only) 11. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it can conveniently be held that the monthly income of the deceased would work out to be Rs. 3300/- and after deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards maintaining himself (Rs.1100/-), monthly income would work out to be Rs. 2200/- and annual to be Rs.26,400/-. In this way, the claimants, after applying multiplier of 17 would be entitled to Rs.4,48,800/- towards loss of contribution to family. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants has fairly conceded that only a sum of Rs. 2000/-and Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate to the claimants and Rs.5000/- towards loss consortium to claimant No.1 would be admissible under Section 163-A of the Act. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants has fairly conceded that only a sum of Rs. 2000/-and Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate to the claimants and Rs.5000/- towards loss consortium to claimant No.1 would be admissible under Section 163-A of the Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation that would eventually work out is as under:- Sr.No. Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court 1 Loss of dependency: Rs.4,53,024/- Loss of dependency: Rs.4,48,800/- 2 Loss of love and affection:Rs.10,000/-Loss of love and affection: NIL. Loss of love and affection: NIL 3 Funeral expenses: Rs.5000/- Funeral expenses: 2000/- 4 Loss of estate: NIL Loss of estate: Rs.2500/- 5 Loss of consortium: Rs.10,000/- Loss of consortium to claimant No.1= Rs.5000/- Total = Rs.4,78,024/- Total = Rs.4,58,300/- 14. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award, dated 22.3.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would now be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.4,58,300/- instead of Rs.4,78,024/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the appellant-Insurance Company, to be apportioned amongst them as ordered by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.