MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.07.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in MAC Case No. 42/2012.

2. The brief facts, which may be relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 16.01.2013 one Ajoy Bhuyan (since deceased), was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-23-D-8857, which collided with the bus bearing registration No. AS-06-AC4749 and consequently, said Ajoy Bhuyan and one Dipen Bhuyan sustained injuries and died. The mother of the deceased Ajoy Bhuya filed an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation. On appreciation of the evidence and materials on record, learned Tribunal made an award of Rs. 16,19,000/- in favour of the claimant, mother of the deceased. The compensation was calculated taking the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 1,78,000/- deducting 50% there from towards personal expenses and applying multiplier 18 having regard to the age of the deceased. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AC-4749 was saddled with the responsibility to satisfy the award.

3. Aggrieved by the award, National Insurance Company Limited preferred the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel Mr. R. Goswami for the Insurance Company and learned counsel Mr. S. Banik for the claimant/respondent as well as Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Advocate for the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. were heard. Also perused the records.

5. Learned counsel Mr. R. Goswami submitted, that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable as the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 1,78,000/- being higher than the maximum slab of Rs. 40,000/- as provided in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act. The contention of Mr. Goswami was that the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition and awarded compensation in a manner as if the claim petition was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, ignoring the statutory provision contained in Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as second schedule and thereby fell in grave error.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent, Mr. S. Banik contended that the impugned award suffered from no illegality as the Tribunal rightly calculated the compensation by applying multiplier method and the formula (2/3 X A1 X M) i.e. two third of the annual income multiplied by the relevant multiplier as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. reported in, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

7. Thus, in view of the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the sides and also the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal, the sole point falls for consideration in this appeal is whether a person can claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, even if his annual income exceeds the maximum limit of Rs. 40,000/- or Tribunal can award compensation under Section 163A of the Act even the annual income of the deceased or the claimant, as the case may be is more than Rs. 40,000/-.

8. While deciding the Issue No. 2 and addressing the question of maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A, raised by the Insurance Company, learned Tribunal observed that, "however, relaying on the decision in Sarla Verma's case, it can be concluded that where the application is under Section 163-A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on structured formula basis even when annual income of the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000/-." Thus, the learned Tribunal appears to have taken the view that even a person, having annual income of more than Rs. 40,000/-, can claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act and the compensation can be awarded even the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000/- and accordingly, awarded compensation on the basis of annual income of the deceased as Rs. 1,7