JUDGMENT : Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. The top noted appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.11.2016 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC.Nos.6502/2010 in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of one Chandrashekar. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The claimants in MVC.No.6502/2010 filed a claim petition contending that on 16.06.2008 their son Chandrashekar along with Kumar and other inmates were proceeding in a Maruthi Van bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MD-3621 from Kanipakam to Thimmasanapalli village at Vellore District to attend a marriage function. At about 1.00 a.m., when the vehicle reached near Kumar's land on Thangala-AN Palya Main Road, the deceased Chandrashekhar, who was driving the said vehicle lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which the vehicle met with an accident. Due to the impact, the said Chandrashekar and another inmate namely Parmeshwari died on the spot. The claimants contended that the deceased was hardly aged 27 years and was working as a Site Supervisor at M/s. SLV Builders and Developers and was drawing salary of Rs.2,10,000/-per annum. Hence, they filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.21,40,000/- contending that they were fully dependent on the income of the deceased and due to his unexpected death, they have suffered a lot and lost their bread earner. The claim petition was strongly resisted by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal having examined the oral and documentary evidence on record has proceeded to restrict the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- and has thereafter, proceeded to dismiss the claim petition on the ground that the deceased Chandrashekar was a tort-feaser and as such the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 4. ….. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased Chandrashekar was the tortfeaser and the accident in question occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 4. ….. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased Chandrashekar was the tortfeaser and the accident in question occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the observations made in the decision reported in 2010(2) AWR 512 wherein it is observed that under Section 163-A of MV Act, there is no limit that the income should not exceed more than Rs.40,000/-per year and the schedule is only a guidance to arrive at a multiplier. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the decision rendered in 2005 ACJ 543 wherein it is observed that the Tribunal has got inherent power to grant compensation by applying current provision of law which is applicable for coming to a conclusion and that in the aforesaid case though the claim was made under Section 166 of M.V. Act, the compensation was granted under Section 163A of M.V. Act. Further, the Tribunal has failed to consider that under Section 163-A, the claimants need not prove the rash and negligent act of the driver and that the evidence of P.W.5 clearly shows that the accident in question occurred beyond the control of the deceased. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that the appeal be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and award and award compensation as prayed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and counsel appearing for Insurance Company. 7. The Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition by holding that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and as such the legal representatives of the deceased cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma and another .vs. United India Insurance Company (2009) 13 SCC 710 has held that absence of any specific claim under Section 166 in pleadings would not be a impediment for the Tribunal to examine the claimant's rights under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the claimants could not be deprived of getting just compensation in those cases where the claimants can make out a case under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the claimants could not be deprived of getting just compensation in those cases where the claimants can make out a case under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court, as stated supra, is applicable to the case on hand. However, the claimants have filed a claim petition contending that deceased had an annual income of Rs.2,10,000/-per annum. Since, the income of the deceased per annum exceeds the prescribed slab under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by keeping all contentions open. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal .Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others [ AIR 1996 SC 2155 ] having taken judicial note of the amendment made in the year 1994 deleting sub-section(3) of Section 166 of M.V.Act, has discussed the purpose of amendment and also the intent of legislature to take away the vigor of legislation. 9. The protection is provided under Section 163A of the M.V. Act to the victims whose income slab is Rs.40,000/-per annum and that remedy is not available to the victims whose income slab is more than Rs.40,000/-. Since the evidence on record indicates that the income slab of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-, the remedy available under Section 163A of the M.V. Act cannot be pressed into service. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company .vs. Sunil Kumar and another (Civil Appeal No.9694/2013) has held that when a claim is made under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the insurer cannot be permitted to raise defence in regard to negligence and if permitted would go contrary to very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act. 11. But, there is also no impediment to treat the same as the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act. Precisely on this count, we deem it fit having regard to the valuable rights of the claimants to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to enable the claimants to seek appropriate amendment. It would be also open for the insurer to raise all statutory defence. Precisely on this count, we deem it fit having regard to the valuable rights of the claimants to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to enable the claimants to seek appropriate amendment. It would be also open for the insurer to raise all statutory defence. If the claimants seek relief by amending petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, then it goes without saying that the claimants are required to amend the pleadings in the claim petition and raise a plea to prove the rash and negligence which is sine quo non for determining the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. After such an amendment is carried out, the Insurance Company needs to be given an opportunity to raise a defence available to them in terms of the mandate of the M.V.Act. 12. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 15.11.2016 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC.No 6502/2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to enable the claimants to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In the event, the claimants opt to prosecute the petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, the Tribunal shall proceed to hold an enquiry in accordance with law and thereafter decide the claim petition.