JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants against the order passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1101 of 2012, dated 22.07.2020, wherein the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,89,500/- to claimants, wherein claimants had earlier filed claim petition under Section 166-A, however, later the Section of Law was altered from 166 of Motor Vehicle Act to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, vide orders in IA No.1883 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2012, Sri P.Manohar Reddy (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) and his friends were returning to Hyderabad in Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785 and when they reached Addakal village, a lorry bearing No. NL-01/G0579, driven by driver rashly and negligently all of a sudden stopped the lorry without any precautions due to which the rear side of the lorry hit the deceased car. The inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures on the viral parts of the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785. 3. The contention of the appellants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years and he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in M/s.Wheel World, ECIL, Hyderabad. Due to the said accident, the appellants lost their dependency, hence, appellants claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the death of the deceased. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained set ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.2 further contended in the counter that petitioner are put to strict proof of all the happenings of the accident, involvement of the lorry NL-01/G0579, occupation and income of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioners on the income of the deceased. Respondent No.2 further contended in the counter that petitioner are put to strict proof of all the happenings of the accident, involvement of the lorry NL-01/G0579, occupation and income of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioners on the income of the deceased. As per F.I.R and claim petition, the accident took place only due to the sole negligence on part of driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785 and the Police Addakal also registered a case in Cr.No.1/2012 U/sec. 304(A), 337 IPC only against the driver of said Innova car and there was no negligence on part of driver of the lorry which was proceeding ahead of the innova car and further contended the driver of the lorry was not having effective driving license at the time of accident. The compensation and the interest claimed is exorbitant and prayed the learned Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.4 filed separate counter affidavit and reiterated the averments made by the respondent No.2 and further contended that respondent No.4 did not issue any insurance policy to the car in respect of the alleged cover note mentioned in the petition. The cover note bearing No. 209000076957 was issued against a new two wheeler vehicle bearing No.AP-29-N-6500 with engine No.06F08M58548 and chassis No.06F09C23048 owned by one Venkat Reddy Nandikonda for which subsequently policy was issued against the cover note from 14.08.2009 to 13.8.2010. The Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785 was never insured in the said cover note with this respondent No.4, hence prayed the learned Tribunal to exonerated the repsodnnet No.4 from liability. 6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under: “1. Whether P.Manohar died in a motor accident due in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of (lorry bearing No.) NL-01/G0579? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? 3. To what relief?. Additional Issues. 1. Whether the deceased late P.Manohar Reddy s/o P.Srinivas Reddy died on 2-12012 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP 11 AD 7785 ? 2. Whether the respondent No.4/The Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited is liable to pay compensation and if so to what extent? 3. Whether compensation claimed is excessive?” 7. 1. Whether the deceased late P.Manohar Reddy s/o P.Srinivas Reddy died on 2-12012 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP 11 AD 7785 ? 2. Whether the respondent No.4/The Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited is liable to pay compensation and if so to what extent? 3. Whether compensation claimed is excessive?” 7. After hearing both the parties and their rival contentions and perusing the oral and documentary evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.4,89,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. Heard Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited. None appeared for respondent No.1 & 3. Perused the record. 9. Being unsatisfied by the meagre compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners/claimants on the following among the other grounds that the deceased was hale and health and aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of the family, but the learned Tribunal wrongly considered Schedule-II and restricted earnings of the deceased Rs.40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal ought to have considered income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month as per Ex.A6-Salary Certificate and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimants under other heads. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants further contended that the Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased was travelling in the ill fated car at the time of accident and sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures on the vital parts of the body and died on the spot, however miserably failed to award just compensation amount to the claimants and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation amount and grant just and fair compensation to the claimants. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation and needs no interference. 12. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed any cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, it deems that the respondents are satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed any cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, it deems that the respondents are satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal is that: i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition Under Section 163(A) and grant just and fair compensation to the petitioner. ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent.? Point No.1 & 2. 13. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 01.01.2012. As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years and the claimants/petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/- per month and the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,44,000/-. Initially, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, later the Section of Law was altered to 163 of M.V.Act, vide IA No.1883/2018, dated 07.02.2019. 14. The main grievance of the appellants is that the claimants have proof that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- month as per Ex.A6 and the Tribunal has ought to have taken the annual income of the claimants Rs.1,44,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/- per annum, even though the claimants has filed the petition under Section 163-A of M.V.Act, since the Motor Vehicle Act 1973 is a beneficial provision designed to provide immediate relief to victims without the need for a lengthy trial to prove fault. 15. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reiterated the Section 163-A of the MV Act, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “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). 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.” 16. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt.Sawari and others before the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow), in First Appeal No.614 of 2019, dated 20.09.2022 “14. After considering the legislative history of Section 163A of the Act, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that determination of compensation under Sections 163A and 166 of the Act being final and independent of each other, the claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder simultaneously. One has to opt/elect to either proceed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Act but not under both. The relevant paragraphs 42, 46 and 57 are extracted below:- “42. Section 163A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column Nos. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column Nos. 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle. …..’ ” 17. Section 163-A of the MV Act 1988 was enacted notwithstanding the provisions of Section 166 of the MV Act. The two provisions are distinguishable from each other, for the reason that, under Section 163- A of the MV Act, the claimant is not required to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, but in a proceeding under Section 166 of the MV Act, the proof of rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle is essential. That apart, under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the entire income of the victim, involved in the accident, must not be more than Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only, per annum. 18. The Section 163-A allows the victim of a motor vehicle accident to obtain a final award of compensation. The compensation under Section 163-A can be obtained without the claimant averring or establishing that the injuries sustained or death caused was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the driver and vicariously therefore, by the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned. In other words, compensation under Section 163-A is granted on the principle of “no-fault liability”. The Section 163-A of the MV Act, grants liberty to the Courts/Tribunal to grant compensation, without insisting on a long drawn trial or without proof of negligence in causing the accident and it was for the purpose of granting a quick and efficacious relief to victims falling within the specified category. The Section 163-A provision is clearly a social security scheme, the purpose being to grant relief to a specified section of the society, whose income range is limited to Rs.40,000/-, per annum. The Section 163-A provision is clearly a social security scheme, the purpose being to grant relief to a specified section of the society, whose income range is limited to Rs.40,000/-, per annum. The compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act is thus to be paid by applying the multiplier method, under the Second Schedule, along with other relevant factors, including reduction of 1/3 rd , in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself and other non-pecuniary losses. 19. Coming to the case on hand, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants are claiming compensation under Section 163-A not under Section 166 of M.V.Act, hence the claimants needs not to proof the negligence on the part of the crime vehicle, accordingly the learned Tribunal granted compensation payable under Section 163-A of M.V.Act as per the structured formula provide under II Schedule of the M.V.Act. 20. As far as annual income is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the annual income of the claimants as Rs.40,000/-i.e., maximum capped as per Section 163-A is also Rs.40,000/-, hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased Rs.40,000/- per annum and also deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses needs no interference. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,500/- needs no interference. Therefore this Court do not find any irregularities in the award passed by the learned Tribunal in MVOP No.1101 OF 2012, dated 22.07.2010. 21. Hence, for the said reason, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the respondents and against claimants and consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants falls to the ground and the same deserves to be dismiss. 22. Accordingly, MACMA No.736 of 2020 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.