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