Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they both arise out of a common award dated 31.10.2007 passed by the IX Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Bilaspur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 49/2006 awarding compensation of Rs.3,38,500/- in favour of the claimants.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the parents of the deceased Ramkumar @ Bhuru Yadav filed a claim petition alleging that the deceased was employed as a tractor driver of Tractor No.CG" 10/D/0264 and Trolley No. CG"10/D/0265 by the owner Bhupendra Kirshna Tamaskar and his Manager Manharan Geer. It was alleged that the deceased was being given salary of Rs.100/- per day and daily allowance of Rs.25/- per day, therefore, total income of the deceased was Rs.125/- per day, which works out to Rs. 3,750/- per month or Rs. 45,000/- per annum. In the claim petition, it is alleged that the deceased died because he fell down from the tractor while crossing through a pit on the road. The Insurance company contested the claim on various grounds including that the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') is not maintainable and also on the ground that since the deceased himself was driving the vehicle in question, he was not entitled to claim compensation under the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, but thereafter did not apply the Scheduled which is applicable under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. He awarded compensation by taking into consideration the principles laid down under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (herein after referred to as 'the W.C. Act').

3. The Insurance Company has challenged the award on two grounds. Firstly, since the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per month, claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act was not maintainable. Secondly, it is urged that since the deceased himself was driving the vehicle, no amount of compensation could be claimed and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be asked to pay compensation for death of the driver who himself may be negligent. Lastly, it is urged that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation as if he was a judge discharging the duties under the W.C. Act.

4. On behalf of the claimants, an appeal has been filed claiming enhancement of compensation.

5. I am of the considered view that when the income of the deceased claimed by the claimant was more than 40,000/- per annum, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act was not maintainable and in this behalf reference may be made to the judgment of Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385.

6. I am also of the view that the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon Section 4 of the W.C. Act while assessing the compensation in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. It is more than obvious that basic principles of law of compensation under Section 163-A had not been followed. What can be awarded under Section 163-A is only the amount payable under Schedule-II. When a claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is entertained, the Tribunal cannot award a penny less or a penny more than what is payable under the Schedule.

7. Having held so, I am clearly of the view that the claimants should not suffer for the fault of the counsel. It is not disputed that the deceased was working as a driver on the tractor. The case of the owner is that the deceased was not a regular driver, but he was hired on short term basis @ Rs. 50/- per day. The owner has not led any evidence in this behalf. I feel that it is a fit case where I should exercise supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The claimants were misguided by their counsel to file the claim petition under th