JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. 1. M.A.C.M.A.No.32 of 2020 is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited and Cross Objection No.35 of 2020 is filed by the Claimants being aggrieved and unsatisfied against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.250 of 2014, dated 04.02.2019. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2013, the deceased along with another were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-22 AQ-4730 from Ranipet to Gangapur village on Jadcherla Kalwakurthy road and when they reached near Yerra kaluva, an unknown vehicle being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased motorcycle, as a result, both the deceased who was a pillion rider and also rider of the said motorcycle, fell on the road and sustained severe grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to hospital and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Jadcherala Police, registered a case vide Crime No.577 of 13. The petitioner claimed that, due to the sudden death of the deceased the petitioners lost their source of income and the claimants were depended on the deceased for their livelihood and claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 (Owner of the Motor Cycle No.AP-22-AQ-4730 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and contended that the petitioners filed the petition filed under Sections 140 or 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as such the petition is not maintainable, as it is a ‘hit and run case’ and also contends both the police and the insured failed to discharge their mandatory duties contemplated under Sections 134 and 158 (6) respectively of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and there was no negligence at all on the part of the driver of the motorcycle registration No.AP-22-AQ-4730 at the time of accident and that, there is contributory negligence on the part negligence contributory of the rider of the motorcycle and prayed to dismiss the petition in so far as respondent No.2 is concerned. 5. 5. Basing on the pleadings of the both the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: “(i) Whether the death of the deceased late Mandla Kesavulu died out of a motor accident occurred on 19.11.2013 at about 08.00 pm near Yerra kaluva within the limits of Gangapur village on Jadcherla Kalwakurthy road on account of the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.AP-22-AQ-4730? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the compensation for the death of late Mandla Kesavulu and if so, what amount and from whom? (iii) To what relief?” 6. In support of the case of the claimant, the claimant examined herself as P.W1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and marked. Ex.B1 and B2 are marked. 7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. Being aggrieved with the compensation amount, National Insurance Company Limited filed M.A.C.M.A.No.32 of 2020 to exonerate respondent No.2 from liability and claimants prefer Cross Objection No.35 of 2020 to enhance the compensation amount. Contentions raised by learned counsel for the National Insurance Company: 9. It is averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the bike and the Police was unable to trace out the crime vehicle, thereby the claimants ought to have filed the claim petition under Section 161 of M.V.Act instead of 163-A and 140 of M.V.Act. The learned Tribunal did not consider the crucial aspect of violated the Insurance Policy. 10. The learned Tribunal did not consider the crucial aspect of violated the Insurance Policy. 10. It is further averred that learned Tribunal failed to examine properly, whether there was an accident as alleged, and also there was no damage to the said motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-22-AQ-4730 and there is negligence on the part of the rider of the said motor cycle and also the offending vehicle which hit the deceased motorcycle was not traced, as the FIR also reveals that the motorcycle has been hit by another motorcycle, however the offending crime vehicle was not traceable, hence the accident was not clearly proved and the compensation granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and prayed to set aside the Tribunal order and allow the present appeal filed by the respondent No.2 Contentions of the Claimants: 11. It is averred that claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 163-A and the section provides for "no-fault" liability, and the claimants doesn't need to prove negligence to get compensation for death in a motor accident and claimants are not bound to prove the burden of innocence of the rider in which the deceased was pillion rider and the learned Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, however the learned Tribunal failed to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.300/- per day as the deceased he was working as coolie and was aged about 48 years as on the date of the accident and the learned Tribunal did award the amount under convention heads and pray this Court to enhance the compensation. 12. Heard , Sri P.Harinath Gupta , learned Counsel for Insurance Company and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for claiamts. None appear for respondent No.1 Perused the material on record. 13. Admittedly, both the parties have filed appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is dispute regarding age and income of the deceased more particularly liability of the respondent No.2. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly consider the claim petition  under Section 163-A of M.V.Act ii) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on both the Insurance Company.? Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly consider the claim petition  under Section 163-A of M.V.Act ii) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on both the Insurance Company.? iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation and if so, from whom and what quantum of amount? Point Nos.1 & 2 14. The main grievance of the Insurance Company is that the claimants ought to have filed the claim petition under Section 161 of the M.V.Act, as it is a case ‘hit and run’ and the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy under Section 161 of the M.V.Act instead the petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act and the learned Tribunal without considering the crux of the case that the matter will come under hit and run case has granted compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act and further contended that the monthly income taken by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant. 15. Per contra, learned counsel contention is that the learned Tribunal did not award any amount towards love and affection and fatherhood in respect of the children and the learned Tribunal failed to add 50% of the amount towards future prospects of the deceased in view of the rising value and inflation in the market and the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 12% on the compensation amount. 16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to an accident occurred on 19.11.2013, which is not disputed by either of the parties. The deceased was a pillion rider on the motorcycle vehicle bearing registration No.AP- 22-AQ-4730 when ‘unknown vehicle’ being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased motorcycle as a result of which, both the rider and pillion rider (deceased) fell on the road and received severe injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries. It is pertinent to mention that the rider is none other than the deceased’s son. 17. PW.1 in her chief examination has specifically deposed that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle and that the motorcycle was being driven by its rider in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident, however, she stated that she did not witness the accident. 18. 17. PW.1 in her chief examination has specifically deposed that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle and that the motorcycle was being driven by its rider in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident, however, she stated that she did not witness the accident. 18. Ex.A1 shows that Mandla kurmaiah claiming to be the own son of the deceased and also the rider of the motorcycle, gave a report on 20.11.2013 before the Station House Officer, Jadcherala deposing that on 19.11.2013, when he and his father i.e., Mandal Kesavulu (deceased) were coming on motorcycle from Ranipet to Gangapur and when the vehicle reached near Yerrakaluva within the limits of Gangapur Village an unknown vehicle coming in the opposite direction hit their motorcycle and the deceased sustained severe injuries and was shifted to the Government hospital, where the deceased succumbed to injuries on 20.11.2013. 19. Ex.A3 - Investigation Officer who investigated Crime No.577 of 2013 submitted report that the vehicle hit the motorcycle bearing No.AP-22-AQ- 4730 could not be traced despite all possible efforts made by Investigation Officer. 20. The son of the deceased i.e., Mandla Kurmaiah stated that he was driving the motorcycle at relevant point of time and the deceased has taken lift from his son and when they proceeding the accident occurred, however there is no mentioned in the Ex.A1 that the deceased’s son was riding the vehicle and the Tribunal disbelieve the version of the Mandla Kurmaiah that he was riding the motorcycle because it is hard to believe that his father has requested for lift from his own son and also there is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 or in the petition with regard to the name of the rider of the said motorcycle, hence the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the Ex.A1 and come to the conclusion that another person might be riding the vehicle. 21. 21. As per the evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, it is clear that on 19.11.2013, when the deceased along with unknown person who was driving the motorcycle an accident occurred, since the petition was filed under Section 163-A i.e., “no fault liability” the Tribunal has awarded compensation relying upon the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Orient Insurance Company Limited v. Indro Devi and others , 2016 ACJ 1759 and judgment passed by High Court of judicature at Madras in New India Assurance Company Limited v. P.Arunachalam and others , 2017 ACJ 530 22. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanti Bopanna and Others , AIR 2017 SC 2857 , in the said case, the deceased was travelling in a car that belongs to his employer and it was driven by another person. It was contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased is not a third party because he was an employee sitting in the car. It was held in the said case that the deceased was indeed a third party being neither the insurer nor the insured. 23. The Division Bench of this High Court between Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramisetty Srinivasa Rao and Others , 2024 (2) ALD 828 (TS) (DB) ; the petitioners’ case therein is that he was going along with his wife and two other employees in a Maruthi Car which met with an accident, as its driver drove the car in a rash and negligent manner. His wife is the owner of the car and it is also put forth that he is the only earning member of his family. Thus, the Insurance Company has contended that the injured- petitioner is the defacto-owner of the car and thus, the Company is not liable to pay any compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the owner and that he is not a third party. The Bench has held that the term ‘third party’ implies any person other than the insurer and the insured, who are not parties to insurance contract. In the said case the deceased was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident, but in the present case, the deceased is also pillion rider when the accident occurred. 24. Even otherwise, as it is seen from the Ex.B1-copy of Insurance policy, it is a ‘comprehensive/Package Policy’ and not a ‘Act Policy’ . In the said case the deceased was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident, but in the present case, the deceased is also pillion rider when the accident occurred. 24. Even otherwise, as it is seen from the Ex.B1-copy of Insurance policy, it is a ‘comprehensive/Package Policy’ and not a ‘Act Policy’ . It is pertinent to mention herein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan & another , 2012 AIR SCW 6278 , it is held that comprehensive/package policy would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation and the relevant paragraphs No.20 and 21 is extracted here under for ready reference: “20. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated thus:- “In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC’s directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.” 21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.” 25. In view of the cited judgments above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act and granted compensation. Hence, the point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of claimant against the Insurance Company. Point No.3 26. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants claim that the deceased was working as cooolie and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, however, as the Hon’ble decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited , 2004 ACJ 934 , the victim having more than Rs.40,000/- annual income cannot maintain the claim under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. In the present case on hand, the claimants claimed compensation under Section 163-A of M.V.Act and the learned Tribunal having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of income certificate or any documents sustaining that the deceased was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per annum has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, which appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. 27. The claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, no future prospects can be granted. 27. The claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, no future prospects can be granted. The Division Bench of Sikkim High Court in case of “The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Dilu Rai and Other (M.A.C.M.A. No.10 of 2018, dated 4.4.2022)”, held as follows: “It needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as evident from the decisions cited supra that compensation to be computed under Section 163 of the M.V. Act is on the structured formula as it is based on no fault liability. Once a person invokes the provisions of Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise. 20. .……… under Section 163A future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act is to be strictly computed on the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Act.” 28. Therefore, Point No.3 is answered in favour of Insurance Company against claimants. 29. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with 7.5 % per annum interest and neither the Insurance Company nor claimants have placed any such material or grounds to interfere in the findings of the judgment of trial Court. Consequently, both the appeals falls to the ground. 30. Accordingly, MACMA No.32 of 2020 filed by the Insurance Company and Cross Objection No.35 of 2020 filed by the Claimants deserved to be and accordingly dismissed. In the result, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal – cum – I.Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in M.V.O.P.No.250 of 2014, dated 04.02.2019 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.