Joseph, J.

The appellant is the second respondent in a petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). Respondents 1 to 7 in the appeal are the claimants. The only question which is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the petition filed under Section 163A of the Act is not maintainable for the reason that the monthly wages of the deceased was Rs.5,825/-The second schedule prescribed under Section 163A clearly stipulates that it is intended only for those, whose annual income is not more than Rs.40,000/-, it is submitted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants as also the K.S.R.T.C.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004 (2) KLT 395) (SC). Therein, a Bench of three learned Judges proceeded to consider the scheme of Section 163 of the Act. It was inter alia held in that judgment that:

"42. Chapter XI was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of people whose annual income is not more than Rs.40,000/-having regard to the fact that in terms of S.164-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claima s would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-thid thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column Nos. 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle.

xx xxx

67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided.

However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of S.163A, the annual income of Rs.40,000/-per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under S.163A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/-can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act."

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court has also taken the same view in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jabbar (2007 (1) KLT 331). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants made a reference to paragraph 17 of the judgment in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 (6) ACJ 121), where, no doubt, it was held that :

"The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia, inserting Section 163A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14/11/1994. Section 163A of the M.V.Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/- It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than