JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - MFA No.24941/2011 1. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12th July 2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Gangavathi (for short "the Tribunal"), in MVC No213/2010. 2. The Tribunal by way the said judgment had awarded compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and also directed respondent No.2 Insurance Company to make payment of the said amount on a petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, 1988. 3. The Insurance Company is on appeal contending that the claimants in the said MVC was a driver of the vehicle and in terms of Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the driver, owner and insured of the vehicle cannot claim benefit under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, since the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the said owner for his own negligence. In this regard, Shri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 , rendered on 07.01.2020. 4. Per contra, Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel for the claimants would rely on the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Ors, (2020) 4 ALD 317 , rendered on 08.06.2020. More particularly paragraph No.13 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "13. In this view of the matter, it is not relevant that the person insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have been riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in the death of the person driving the vehicle. The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in stating that it was necessary Under Section 163A to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which the death of the victim would take place. 5. Relying on the said paragraph, Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel would submit that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is now no longer necessary to draw a distinction between the rider of the vehicle or pillion rider of the vehicle. 5. Relying on the said paragraph, Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel would submit that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is now no longer necessary to draw a distinction between the rider of the vehicle or pillion rider of the vehicle. Both rider and pillion rider would have to be treated equally for availing benefit under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. 6. Heard Shri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the papers. 7. Having considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another (supra) rendered on 07.01.2020 and the decision in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari (supra), rendered on 08.06.2020, I am of the considered opinion that this Court will have to follow the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered on 08.06.2020 in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari (supra), as per which no distinction can be made between the rider and pillion rider and petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act can be maintained even by the rider. 8. In view of the same, the appeal in MFA No.24941/2011 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MFA Crob. No.767/2013 9. The cross objection in MFA Crob. No.767/2013 has been filed by the claimants-cross-objectors seeking for enhancement of compensation from that awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit, on the following heads: Heads of accounts Amount 1. Loss of dependency 4,08,000/- 2. Loss of estate 2,000/- 3. Loss of consortium 5,000/- 4. Funeral expenses 2,500/- Total 4,17,500/- 11. Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel for the crossobjectors would submit that the cross-objectors have preferred the cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation contending that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meagre, insufficient, contrary to applicable guidelines. The compensation awarded under the different heads of account does not take into account the income of the deceased, age of the deceased, dependants of the deceased, expenses incurred towards medical expenses., etc. The cross-objectors are therefore entitled to for higher compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The compensation awarded under the different heads of account does not take into account the income of the deceased, age of the deceased, dependants of the deceased, expenses incurred towards medical expenses., etc. The cross-objectors are therefore entitled to for higher compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Per contra, shri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct. All the aspects that are required to be considered have been so considered by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded as compensation is more than sufficient, and there are no further amounts which are required to be awarded and sought for dismissal of the cross-objection. 13. The nature and occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. This Court today in MFA No.24941/2011 has held that the Insurance Company is liable to make payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The coverage of the insurance policy is therefore established. The facts relating to the accident not being in dispute are not being adverted to. 14. The claimants are the legal representatives' of the deceased-Anand Ramesh, who expired on 01.06.2010 on account of the accident. At the time of his death, the deceased-Anand Ramesh was aged about 31 years and survived by is wife and parents i.e., having three dependants. The Tribunal considering that the claimants had not produced any documents to establish the earning of the deceased, but the Tribunal had taken an amount of Rs.100/- per day as income of the deceased. In terms of Section 163-A of M.V. Act, maximum income of the deceased which would have to be taken into consideration in a claim under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is Rs.40,000/- p.a. 15. As per the structured formula an amount equivalent to 1/3rd is required to be deducted from the said annual income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency would be Rs.40,000/- x 2/3rd = Rs.26,667/- rounded off to Rs.26,700/-. 16. The Tribunal had wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 16, since the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of death. The same is rectified. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.26,700 x 16 = Rs.4,27,200/-. 17. 16. The Tribunal had wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 16, since the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of death. The same is rectified. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.26,700 x 16 = Rs.4,27,200/-. 17. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses are in terms of Schedule-II of Section 163-A of M.V. Act and do not call for any interference by this Court. 18. Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is under: Heads of accounts Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Difference 1. Loss of dependency 4,08,000/- 4,27,200/- 19,200/- 2. Loss of estate 2,000/- 2,000/- - 3. Loss of consortium 5,000/- 5,000/- - 4. Funeral expenses 2,500/- 2,500/- - Total 4,17,500/- 4,36,700/- 19,200/- 19. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The cross-objection in MFA Crob. No.767/2013 is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 12th July 2011, passed by the Tribunal in MVC No213/2010 is hereby modified. The cross-objectors are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.19,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.