JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Since both the appeals are arising out of the common judgment, they are heard and taken up together for consideration. 2. Appeal in MFA No.22963/2009 is by the appellant-claimant questioning the validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.321/2007 dated 02.05.2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri ((hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal ) and for enhancement of compensation. Whereas, appeal in MFA No.22231/2009 is by the Insurance Company to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal questioning the liability. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as under: A claim petition came to be filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 28.06.2007 at about 3.30 a.m. the claimant was driving the Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-27/M-2153 belonging to the first respondent from Bengaluru towards Haveri and the when the vehicle reached near Bharamasagar- Gollarahalli village cross, vehicle toppled down and met with an accident and the claimant-appellant sustained grievous crush injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere and then to City Central Hospital, Davanagere. It is contended that he has spent an amount f Rs.2 lakhs for his treatment and sought for grant of compensation. 4. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and the second respondent-Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the petition averments in toto. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues: 1. Whether petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries in the motor accident that occurred on 28.6.2007 at about 3.30 AM on MH-04 near Gollarahatti village cross, bharamasagar, while he was driving the bolero car bearing No.KA- 27/M-2153 from Bangalore towards Haveri? 2. Whether petitioner further proves that, the above said accident occurred due to use and involvement of Bolero car bearing No.KA-27/M- 2153? 3. Whether resp.No.2 proves that, the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself? 4. Whether resp.no.2 proves that, petitioner did not possess valid and effective D.L., at the time of accident? 5. Whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom? 6. What order? 6. 3. Whether resp.No.2 proves that, the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself? 4. Whether resp.no.2 proves that, petitioner did not possess valid and effective D.L., at the time of accident? 5. Whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom? 6. What order? 6. In order to prove the issues, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and other two witnesses are examined as PWs.2 and 3 and the claimant and relied on documentary evidence, which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.203. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined but they got marked policy as Ex.R.1 7. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part grating a sum of Rs.2,55,320/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and both the respondents were held liable to pay the compensation. It is that judgment, which is under challenge in these appeals. 8. Sri.Anjaneya M, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and needs to be enhanced and hence, sought for enhancement of compensation 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the maximum compensation i.e. allowable is only to an extent of Rs.50,000/- and therefore sought for reduction of the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration: i) Whether the compensation of Rs.2,55,320/- awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable? ii) Whether the Insurance Company makes out a case for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal? 11. The answer to the point No.1 is in the negative and point No.2 is in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 12. The accident in question involving Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-27/M-2153 is not in dispute. Admittedly, the vehicle belongs to first respondent, who did not challenge the award. The injuries sustained by the claimant are also not in dispute and the same are proved by the claimant by producing the medical records. 13. The claim petition is filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, he would be treated as a third party as the vehicle belongs to first respondent. The injuries sustained by the claimant are also not in dispute and the same are proved by the claimant by producing the medical records. 13. The claim petition is filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, he would be treated as a third party as the vehicle belongs to first respondent. Under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, as per the schedule the maximum compensation that would be allowable for an injured in an accident is Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,55,320/- after appreciating the material on record. The Tribunal misdirected itself in considering the case of the claimant as if it is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. In order to better appreciate the case of the parties, it is just and necessary for this court to cull out Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows: 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 subsection (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.] 15. On careful consideration of the material on record, the discussion as is made by the Tribunal cannot be countenanced in law. (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.] 15. On careful consideration of the material on record, the discussion as is made by the Tribunal cannot be countenanced in law. As such, this Court finds sufficient force in the argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that the compensation as is awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, especially when the petition is filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. Having regard to the fact that the maximum compensation allowable under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles act is Rs.50,000/- in case of an injured, the claimants have not made out any good ground to seek enhancement of compensation. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the points are answered accordingly and the following order is passed. ORDER The appeal filed by the claimant-appellant in MFA No.22963/2009 is dismissed. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.22231/2009 is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by reducing compensation from Rs.2,55,320/- to Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court by the Insurance Company shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. Excess amount deposited, if any, is to be refunded to Insurance Company. Office is directed to draw modified award.