JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.D. Purakayatha, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8. 2. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 226/2010 awarding the claimants a sum of Rs. 9,38,560/- along with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation for the death of Moin Mia, who is the husband of the first claimant, son of the second and third claimant, father of the claimant Nos. 4, 6 and 8 and also brother of the claimant Nos. 5 and 7. 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 27.02.2009, the deceased being the driver of an Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. AS-01 J-5397 insured with the appellant herein was proceeding from Guwahati toward Tripura. As the tanker reached Hilala Railway Gate No. NH 44, it dashed against a tree and fell into a pond causing grievous injury on the person of the deceased. While he was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, he succumbed to injuries. As a result, the claimants filed a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. The deceased was said to have earned a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as driver of the Oil Tanker and therefore, a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/- was claimed as compensation. 4. The appellant as opposite party No. 2 and the owner of the vehicle as opposite party No. 1 contested the claim by filing their written statement separately. The owner of the vehicle while denying the claim contended that the vehicle was insured validly with the opposite party No. 2 (the appellant herein) and therefore, in the event of any liability being found, the owner will be liable to indemnify the insurer. Similarly, the OP No. 2 i.e. the instant appellant denied its liability to pay any compensation and contended that there was no cause of action and the claim was bad for mis-joinder of necessary party, suppression of material facts and that the amount claimed was highly excessive. In support of their claim, the claimants examined claimant No. 1 as the sole claimant witness while the OP did not examine any witness. In support of their claim, the claimants examined claimant No. 1 as the sole claimant witness while the OP did not examine any witness. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the claim by awarding compensation to the claimants as already mentioned hereinabove. 5. Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim was filed by the claimant under Section 163-A of the MV Act but the learned Tribunal proceeded to consider and dispose of the claim as a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. While doing so, the Tribunal computed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6240/- by taking into consideration the daily wage earned by a skilled worker in terms of the Notification No. GLR. 503/81/392 dated 15.03.2012, issued by the Government of Assam in the Labour and Employment Department. He submits that as per the 2nd Schedule of the MV Act, the highest annual income slab is Rs. 40,000/- and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in computing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6240/- as it exceeded the annual income of Rs. 40,000/-. The learned counsel further submits that once a claim is made under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the amount of compensation has to be computed as per the formula given in the 2nd Schedule and not otherwise. As such, the amount of compensation given by the Tribunal for the conventional heads totaling to Rs. 40,000/- is misconceived and also on the higher side. As such, the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal may be interfered with by this Court. 6. Mr. S.D. Purakayatha, the learned counsel on the other hand submits that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. But however, the Tribunal only accepted a sum of Rs. 6240/- as his monthly income in view of the notification of the Labour and Employment Department. He submits that in addition to the computation of his monthly income, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of his monthly income towards the future prospect in terms of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 6240/- as his monthly income in view of the notification of the Labour and Employment Department. He submits that in addition to the computation of his monthly income, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of his monthly income towards the future prospect in terms of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal was also not justified in taking the multiplier of 15 while computing the amount of compensation entitled to the claimants inasmuch as the deceased was about 38 years at the time of his death as per the Voter ID Card exhibited by the claimant as Exhibit-6. Under the circumstance, the award of the Tribunal is only on the lower side and since the claimants have not filed a separate appeal or cross appeal, the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal may be maintained. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the LCR of the Tribunal. 8. As can be seen, the issue to be considered as projected by the parties is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned Judgment and Award by accepting the claim as a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. From a perusal of the record, it is seen that the claimants have filed the claim application on 23.03.2010 clearly mentioning the claim to be under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The record does not reveal anywhere that the claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act was converted into a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. Therefore, it is apparent that the Tribunal committed error in deciding the claim as a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. A perusal of the 2nd Schedule of the MV Act under Section 163-A provides Rs. 40,000/- as the highest annual income slab and further, in case of a fatal accident, the claim has to be reduced by 1/3rd considering the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. 9. The Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. 40,000/- as the highest annual income slab and further, in case of a fatal accident, the claim has to be reduced by 1/3rd considering the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. 9. The Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385 held that a claim under Section 163-A and Section 166 of the MV Act are final and independent of each other and claim therefore cannot be pursued under the two Sections simultaneously. Therefore, in the present case as well, since the record reveals that the claim was filed under Section 163-A, the claim has to be decided under the said Section only. Although the income of the deceased was said to be Rs. 10,000/- per month, the same cannot be accepted in toto and will have to come within the permissible limit as provided under the 2nd Schedule i.e. 40,000/- per annum. In so far as the choice of multiplier is concerned, although the learned counsel for the claimants contend that the Voter ID card clearly reveals that he was 38 years, I am not inclined to accept the same since the claimant himself has declared his age to be as 45 years and also having regard to the fact that the post mortem report again reveals his age to be 50 years. Fact remains that the claimant have not filed any appeal nor they have filed any cross objection to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, I do not find any scope for enhancing the amount in favour of the claimants. 10. In view of the above discussion and having found that the claim has to be decided in terms of Section 163-A of the MV Act, I find that the impugned Judgment and Award requires to be suitably modified. The impugned Judgment and Award is hereby set aside and the amount of compensation shall now be as follows:- (1) Annual income of the deceased = Rs. 40,000/- (2) After deducting 1/3rd as per 2nd Schedule =Rs. 26,667/- (3) Rs. 26,667x15=Rs. 400,005/- (4) Toward funeral expense = Rs. 2000/- (5) Loss of consortium = Rs. 5000/- (6) Loss of estate = Rs. 2500/- Total = Rs. 409,505/- (Rupees Four lakhs nine thousand five hundred and five) only. 11. The claimant shall thus be entitled to a sum of Rs. 26,667/- (3) Rs. 26,667x15=Rs. 400,005/- (4) Toward funeral expense = Rs. 2000/- (5) Loss of consortium = Rs. 5000/- (6) Loss of estate = Rs. 2500/- Total = Rs. 409,505/- (Rupees Four lakhs nine thousand five hundred and five) only. 11. The claimant shall thus be entitled to a sum of Rs. 409,505/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 23.03.2010 till final payment. 12. At this stage, it is seen that the appellant Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs. 4,69,280/- before the Registry of this Court which was then released to the claimants, except claimant No. 1 on equal shares. The reason why the amount could not be released to the claimant No. 1 is due to the discrepancy in the Photograph attached in the claim application and that of her Identity card. Mr. S.D. Purakayatha, the learned counsel submits that the Photograph attached to the claim application is the sister of the claimant No. 1. If that be so, the amount due to the claimant No. 1 may be released by the Registry on production of a joint affidavit by the claimant No. 1 and her sister and also on their personal appearance in the Registry. 13. The compensation amount including the interest shall be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company before the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appellant shall however be at liberty to deduct the amount which has already been deposited and paid to the claimants. 14. Registry shall retain the LCR until the amount is disbursed to all the respective parties. It is also made cleared that the amount to be disbursed to the claimant No. 1 being the wife of the deceased will have an extra share of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium. 15. With the above observations, modification and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. 16. The appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest, if any which was deposited at the time of filing of the appeal as per the usual procedure.