JUDGMENT : GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Since the claims in these appeals are occasioned out of same accident and as the same questions of fact and law have been challenged by the insurer/2 nd respondent, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in MACMA Nos.41 and 43 of 2024 and Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in MACMA No.1597 of 2024 and Sri Venuganti Ramchander Rao, learned counsel for the respondents in all these appeals. 3. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in MVOP Nos.296 of 2018, 297 of 2018 and 34 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar respectively. 4. The facts leading to filing of the above MVOPs are that on 16.09.2016, Bolli Raju, the deceased in MVOP No.296 of 2018, Manchamalla Raghu, the deceased in MVOP No.297 of 2018 and Pilli Santhosh, the deceased in MVOP No.34 of 2018, along with their friend, K.Srikanth, went to Saidapur Village from Bommanapalli Village for cooling the new Tractor Mahindra Yuvo bearing T/R.No.TS 02 PTR 9704 and while returning from Saidapur to Bommanapalli, on the way at about 20.00 hours, when they reached the outskirts of Duddenapalli Village, two police persons were proceeding in the same direction on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 BB 3142. Respondent No.1 allowed the motorcycle rider to overtake the tractor, but, within no time he drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down in the bushes. Respondent No.1 after hitting the motorcycle, lost control and drove the tractor to the right side and fell into the agricultural well situated by the road side, due to which, the deceased in these appeals along with another died on the spot, but, the driver of the tractor jumped and ran away from the scene of offence. On receipt of the complaint, the Station House Officer, Saidapur, registered a case, vide Crime No.114 of 2016 under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the driver of the Tractor. On receipt of the complaint, the Station House Officer, Saidapur, registered a case, vide Crime No.114 of 2016 under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the driver of the Tractor. The age of the deceased persons in the above three appeals is 19 years, 25 years and 25 years, respectively, who were hale and healthy and working as labourers and auto driver, respectively, and were earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per annum each as on the date of accident and contributing the same for the welfare of the claimants. The claimants filed the MVOPs under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, each. 5. The driver of the Tractor i.e. respondent No.1-Kathula Shiv Kumar, owner of the accident vehicle/Tractor, remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. 6. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter- affidavits before the learned Tribunal denying the allegations made by the claimants in the claim petitions. It is vehemently contended therein that the respondent No.1, driver (owner) of the Tractor, did not possess valid and effective driving license, which is a fundamental breach as to the terms and conditions of the policy and that the deceased and three others were travelling unauthorizedly by sitting on the mudguard of the Tractor and therefore, the Insurance Company has no joint and several liability and the owner of the accident vehicle alone is responsible to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased only and denied the age, income, and avocation of the deceased at the time of accident. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 pleaded that the petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable as the deceased were neither owner nor the driver of the tractor. The deceased were traveling as unauthorized passengers on the said tractor. At last prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues for consideration in all the three MVOPs: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No.1 as alleged by the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so, at what rate and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 9. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No.1 as alleged by the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so, at what rate and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants-appellants, PW.1 was examined and documents Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked in MVOP Nos.296 and 297 of 2018 while PW.1 was examined and documents Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked in MVOP No.34 of 2018. On behalf of the insurance company, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked in MVOP.No.296 of 2018, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked in MVOP.No.297 of 2018 and RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked in MVOP No.34 of 2018. 10. The learned Tribunal, considering various issues on record and taking into account of the respective eligibility criteria, awarded an amount of Rs.5,99,200/- towards compensation in MVOP Nos.296 and 297 of 2018 and Rs.7,48,994/- in MVOP No.34 of 2018, under various heads, each along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company approached this Court by way of filing the above referred appeals. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the claimants filed claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Act, and as such, the learned Tribunal has to strictly adhere to the II Schedule of the Act while computing the compensation, but the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal went beyond the limit prescribed under the II Schedule. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that as per II Schedule of the Act, the maximum income that can be considered is Rs.40,000/- per annum, but in these cases, the income of the deceased at the time of accident was considered by the learned Tribunal as Rs.42,000/- per annum, in MVOP Nos.296 and 297 of 2018, which is erroneous. 12. However, in respect of MVOP No.34 of 2018, though the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.40,000/-, per annum, the learned Tribunal erroneously awarded compensation under other heads like loss of love and affection, consortium etc. which cannot be permitted to be granted, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. 12. However, in respect of MVOP No.34 of 2018, though the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.40,000/-, per annum, the learned Tribunal erroneously awarded compensation under other heads like loss of love and affection, consortium etc. which cannot be permitted to be granted, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Even the future prospects should not be considered when the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Learned counsel further contended that once an application is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the learned Tribunal cannot consider the claim under any other heads, much less under Section 166 of the Act. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personnel expenses as the deceased was an unmarried person. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company further contended that the learned Tribunal while wrongly interpreting Section 163-A of the Act granted compensation under different heads, and took the income of the deceased at 42,000/- per annum, against the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, when the maximum income that can be taken was Rs.40,000/-. It is also contended that since the claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the learned Tribunal has to strictly adhere to the II Schedule of the Act, which does not specify granting of future prospects etc. 14. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the evidence of RWs.1 to 3 and the documents marked on their behalf as Exs.B.1 to B.4 and that the amount claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant and accordingly, prays to set aside the order of the learned Tribunal. 15. 14. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the evidence of RWs.1 to 3 and the documents marked on their behalf as Exs.B.1 to B.4 and that the amount claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant and accordingly, prays to set aside the order of the learned Tribunal. 15. Learned counsels appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, in support of their contentions in the cases of Union of India v/s. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 , Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Limited v/s. U.P.Financial Corporation , (2003) 2 SCC 455 Deepal Girishbhai Soni v/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda , (2004) 5 SCC 385 , National Insurance Company Limited v/s. Sinitha , AIR 2012 SC 797 , Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v/s. Gaddam Swami Reddy , MACMA No.496 of 2011 dates 07.08.2012 , New India Assurance Company Limited v/s. Smt.Ummannagari Akkamma , MACMA No.706 of 2010 dated 16.04.2015 , Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v/s. M.Sarala , MACMA No.1374 of 2016 dated 06.01.2023 and finally, the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Valsamma Chacko v/s. M.A.Titto , SLP (C) No.27621 of 2019 dt.13.02.2025 , reiterating the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (3 supra). 16. It is held in Regional Director, ESI Corporation v/s. Ramanuja Match Industries , (195) 1 SCC 218 that although the Act is a beneficial one, and thus, deserves liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the Court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered thereby. 17. The Three-Judge Bench in Regional Director (supra) opined that the remedy for payment of compensation both under Sections 163-A and 166 being final and independent of each other as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder simultaneously and one, thus, must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Act, but not under both. 18. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- claimants in all the appeals submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered various issues which are legal and valid which do not call for any interference or indulgence of this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by various Courts reported in Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v/s. Uma Devi , 2024 ACJ 842 , Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v/s. Anitha , 2024 ACJ 539 , New India Assurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v/s. Kuncheti Devamma , 2025 (3) ALD 653 (TS) Vedma Bhojju v/s. Johnson Naik Bhukya , 2025(3) ALD 659 (TS) , New India Assurance Company Limited v/s. Urmila Halder , 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1002 , Ram Murti v/s. Punjab State Electricity Board , 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1576 , New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, Hyderabad v/s. Nellakoti Kanthamma , 2015 (3) ALT 285 (SB) , United India Insurance Company Limited, Adilabad District v/s. Kotrangi Neelabai , 2019 (5) ALD 203 (TS) , United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v/s. Katikala Indira , 2013 (6) ALD 89 , Chandrakanta Tiwari v/s. New India Assurance Company Limited , (2020) 7 SCC 386 , United India Insurance Company Limited v/s. Sunil Kumar , 2018 (2) ALD 36 (SC) and K.R.Jagadish v/s. National Insurance Company Limited , 2025 ACJ 1881 contending that since the Act itself is a beneficial legislation, the law prevailing at the time of adjudication, if more favourable, is to be applied. Further, if there is any claim for compensation, the claimant shall not be required to plead/establish the death or permanent disablement, the claim has to be made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default on the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the Urmila Halder (14 supra) contended that the Act being a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same, thereby contended to dismiss the appeals filed by the insurance company. 20. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and have carefully perused the material available on record. 21. 20. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and have carefully perused the material available on record. 21. Section 163-A that was originally inserted by The Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force from 14.11.1994, to introduce a special scheme of ‘no-fault liability’ based on a structured formula subsequently underwent a significant legislative change, by virtue of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 which was later brought into effect through notifications culminating in the omission of Section 163-A and the Second Schedule in the year 2022. The legislative intent behind such omission was to rationalize and consolidate compensation provisions under the Act and to move away from parallel remedies. However, such omission is prospective in nature and does not expressly or by necessary implication take away vested or accrued rights of claimants arising out of accidents that occurred prior to the said amendment. Therefore, claims arising from accidents that occurred when Section 163-A was very much in force continue to be governed by the said provision and the Second Schedule, as they stood on the date of the accident. Further, it is not in dispute that the accident in question occurred on 16.09.2016, much prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2022. 22. Even while construing the provisions liberally and harmoniously, this Court is required to ensure that the compensation awarded does not travel beyond what is reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the present statutory philosophy governing no-fault liability. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation, the claim itself cannot be defeated merely on account of repeal of the earlier provision. However, beneficial interpretation cannot be stretched to the extent of permitting awards which are excessive, disproportionate, or founded on principles applicable to fault-based claims. 24. In the present case, the claimants themselves pleaded that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.40,000/-. There is no reliable material on record to justify adoption of a higher income. Even adopting a liberal approach, this Court finds that Rs.40,000/- per annum constitutes a reasonable basis for assessing compensation, having regard to the nature of employment pleaded and the period in which the accident occurred. 25. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the deceased were young persons and that their untimely death has resulted in severe hardship to the claimants/dependents. 25. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the deceased were young persons and that their untimely death has resulted in severe hardship to the claimants/dependents. At the same time, the learned Tribunal clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation under heads and principles traceable to fault liability claims, which cannot be sustained. 26. Balancing the equities, adopting a harmonious construction of the repealed provision, and keeping in view the present legislative approach governing no-fault compensation for death, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- in each case which would be just, reasonable, and in consonance with the object of the Act. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 27. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A.s are allowed in part. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.