D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Appeals arising out of the same accident and involving common question of law and facts are proposed to be disposed of by common Judgment.

( 2 ) INTERIM Award of Rs. 5,10,748. 00 together with interest at the rate of 12 % and proportionate cost was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is this Award which is under challenge in these two Appeals.

( 3 ) WE have heard Shri A. R. Mehta and Shri K. K. Nair for the appellants and Shri Sanjay Amin for the respondents.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has contended that the Award is in excess of the amount indicated in the Second Schedule hence it cannot be sustained.

( 5 ) IN First Appeal No. 2445 of 1997 annual income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5696/and similar amount was assessed in other Appeal. Shri Mehta and Shri Nair have drawn our attention to the Second Schedule for the purpose of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that while awarding the interim compensation under this Section the Tribunal could not have considered annual income beyond Rs. 40,000. 00 which is the outer limit. It was, therefore, contended that the criteria adopted by the Tribunal in proceeding to assess the compensation at the monthly income of Rs. 5696. 00 is erroneous and also contrary to the Second Schedule of the Act. As against this Shri Amin has contended that the outer limit of Rs. 4,000. 00 p. m. is only illustrative and it cannot be said that a person claiming annual income more than Rs. 40,000. 00 is not entitled to interim compensation at the actual annual income. He has brought to our notice the Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in RAMDEVSING V. CHUDASMA V/s. HANSRAJBHAI V. KODALA, reported in 1999 (1) GLR 631. Special Reference was made by Shri Amin of observations made by the Division Bench in Para : 46 of the Judgment. In that case Shri Pandya contended before the Division Bench that Application under Section 163-A of the Act would be limited for the only victims who had income upto Rs. 40,000. 00 per annum and those victims who had income beyond Rs. 40,000. 00 per annum are required to go for claim under Section 166 of the Act. Further contention of Shri Pandya in that case was that Section 163-A is provided for the person having low income with an instant relief. These contentions of Shri Pandya were not accepted by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that if the contention is agreed it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) IN the instant Appeals we are not concerned with victims having low or higher income. What Section 163-A of the Act says is that "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victims, as the case may be.

( 7 ) IT is clear from plain reading of the above provision that the Tribunal is bound to award interim compensation under Section 163-A only for the amount and to the extent as indicated in the Second Schedule. We are unable to accept the contention of Shri Amin that the Tribunal has simply to take guidance from the Second Schedule and can travel beyond what is contained in the Second Schedule in suitable cases. That would be actually re-enacting and re-legislating Section 163-A of the Act which is not the function and jurisdiction of the Court. The Courts are required to interpret the provisions of the statute in conformity with the intention of the Legislature. We do not find any ambiguity in Section 163-A of the Act which requires interpretation. Even if for a moment the contention of Shri Amin is accepted, of course, a perso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document