Heard both the counsel.

2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17-4-1999 passed by the Court of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar in O.P. No.381 /1996, the claimants tiled the appeal.

3. The case of the claimants in brief is that on 18-11-1994 at about 4 a.m., when the deceased was driving the ambulance bearing No.AP-15-A-1279 and when it reached NTPC hospital, due to right wheel burst, the vehicle hit against a tree and as a result the deceased died on the spot. The police concerned have registered a case in Cr.No.96/94 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Claiming that the deceased was aged 42 years as on the date of the accident and that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,664/- as driver in NTPC Ramagundam, the claimants who are his wife and children, filed claim petition under .Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) claiming compensation of Rs.6,43,368/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

4. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and the insurance company tiled counter and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and not due to tyre burst and hence the petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. The age, avocation and income of the deceased are denied and it is stated that the claim is exorbitant. It is further contended that as the income of the claimant is more than Rs.40,000/the petition under Section 163-A is not maintainable. With these averments interalia, the claim petition was sought to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-15-1279 by its driver?

(2) Whether the vehicle in question got valid insurance with 2nd respondent?

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom?

(4) To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the claimants P. Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and on behalf of the respondent, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced.

7. The Tribunal held that the accident in this case prima facie would show that it could not have happened without the negligence on the part of the deceased. But however noted that as the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the negligence of either party need not be proved. Further holding that as the deceased who is the driver of the vehicle died due to the use of the motor vehicle, he is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 of the Act and accordingly granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- and ordered for apportionment and directed to deposit the amount in a nationalized bank for a period of five years. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants who are the dependants of the deceased, filed the appeal for enhancement.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants mainly contended that when the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, whereunder no negligence need be proved, the Tribunal is not justified in granting compensation under Section 140 of the Act and as the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal has to award compensation applying the appropriate multiplier under Second Schedule to the said section and just because the income of the deceased exceeds Rs.40,000/- per annum the application of Second Schedule cannot be denied. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Narendera Nath Halder v. New India Assurance Go. Ltd.1. For deciding the application under Section 163-A of the Act, claimants need not prove rash and negligent driving and in support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shahazadi Bee v. M.D., APSRTG, Musheerabad, Hyd.2. He further contended under Section 163-B of the Act