JUDGMENT : GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Since these appeals arise out of the same accident, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA Nos.468 of 2024 and respondent No.2 in MACMA No.1422 of 2024 and Sri P.Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA No.1422 of 2024 and respondent No.1 in MACMA No.468 of 2024 and perused the record. 3. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in MVOP Nos.2258 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad dated 03.05.2023. 4. The facts leading to filing of the above MVOP are that on 31.01.2017, at about 21.40 hours, the deceased, late V.Rajesh, was crossing the road at Shabaresh Hotel near Word and Deed School on NH 65 Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District and the driver of lorry bearing No.TS 05 UB 0117 while proceeding from Vijayawada to Hyderabad, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and dashed towards the deceased who died on the spot due to grievous injuries. A crime was registered vide Crime No. 102/2017 in Hayathnagar Police Station. The deceased being a cook and doing catering business was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month prior to his death and he used to contribute the same to the welfare of the family. 5. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the accident vehicle and remained ex parte. 6. The respondent No.2, Insurance Company, filed counter-affidavit denying the material allegations leveled in the claim petition including manner of accident, death of the deceased, his age and income by the time of the death and registration of the case against the driver of the crime vehicle. It is further alleged by the respondent No.2 that the deceased had not died in a road traffic accident, but was killed by Mohammed Nadeem and four others and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. As such, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. The learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues for consideration in the MVOP: “1. As such, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. The learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues for consideration in the MVOP: “1. Whether the death of the deceased Vadthya Rajesh was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.TS 05 UB 0117 driven by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to what extent and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants-appellant, PW.1 was examined and documents Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 9. The learned Tribunal, considering various issues on record and taking into account of the eligibility criteria, awarded an amount of Rs.15,10,000/- towards compensation, under various heads to the appellant/claimants along with 6% interest per annum. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company approached this Court by filing MACMA No.468 of 2024 and the appellant/claimant filed MACMA No.1422 of 2024 seeking enhancement of the same. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- along with 6% interest per annum, against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- instead of dismissing the claim petition, since accused No.1 Mohammad Nadeem and four others chased the deceased to kill him and the deceased to save himself ran without observing the lorry. Due to his negligence, the deceased suddenly tried to cross the road, came under the wheels of the lorry and died due to self negligence only and therefore there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal erroneously took notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and 50% towards future prospects and awarded amounts under various other heads also and failed to see that the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and prays for dismissal of the appeal as well as claim petition. 12. The Tribunal erroneously took notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and 50% towards future prospects and awarded amounts under various other heads also and failed to see that the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and prays for dismissal of the appeal as well as claim petition. 12. Learned counsel 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). 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant in these appeals submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the Act is a welfare and beneficial legislation to do justice to injured persons and dependants of the deceased and as the deceased in these cases was aged 21 years at the time of accident being hale and healthy, the learned Tribunal wrongly took the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- which is meager and filed the cross appeal to enhance the compensation along with interest and costs. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v/s. Urmila Halder , 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1002 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 appeal filed by the insurance company and sought to enhance the compensation. 17. I have given my earnest consideration and perused the record. 18. Section 163-A of the Act 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 31.01.2017, much prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2022. 19. 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 31.01.2017, much prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2022. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. In the present case, the claimants themselves pleaded that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no reliable material on record to justify adoption of a higher income. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the deceased was a young person and that his 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. 22. 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.8,00,000/- which would be just, reasonable, and in consonance with the object of the Act. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 23. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.468 and 1422 of 2024 are accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.