Raman, J.

Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No.342 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. For convenience, we refer to the status of the parties as in the Tribunal. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased P.T.Philip, petitioners 2 and 3 are his children and fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The brief facts as borne out by the records are as follows.

2. The deceased was travelling in a car bearing Registration No.KL-9B/858 through the M.C.Road, when a bus bearing Registration KL 5A 7876, driven by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the car, as a result, he sustained serious injuries. He was treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, but subsequently succumbed to the injuries. First respondent was the owner of the bus, second respondent was the driver of the vehicle and third respondent is the Insurer of the vehicle. The claim was made for a total compensation of Rupees One Crore under different heads. The claim petition however was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application filed also disclosed that the income of the deceased is more than Rupees One Lakh per month, thus, above the limit of Rs.40,000/- prescribed under the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The Insurance Company contested the case. The issues were framed by the Tribunal including on the question of negligence and found that the accident occurred as a result of the negligent driving of the bus driver, the second respondent. Thereupon, it proceeded to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Being a claim under Section 163 A of the M.V.Act, the compensation was worked out putting a captive income at Rs.40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal relied on Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Patricia Jean Mahajan and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2002 ACJ 1) to hold that by filing a petition under Section 163 A, the petitioners have limited their claim to the compensation awarded under Section 163A and the legislature having provided a quicker remedy to obviate the need for a long round litigation, being a beneficial provision, it must be applied to all cases of citizens. But in the case of higher income group, the income will be notionally brought down to Rs.40,000/-so as to work out the compensation under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal worked out the compensation and total amount of Rs.5,73,000/-was awarded as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, besides awarding a cost of Rs.10,000/-to be paid by the third respondent. The manner of deposit to be made in the case of minors was also specified in the award under consideration. Subsequently, the third respondent, Insurance Company, sought a review of the award by filing I.A.No. 1753 of 2004. The only contention raised in the review petition was that while taking the income as of Rs.40,000/-, one-third was not deducted for calculating the loss of dependency, which contention was accepted by the Tribunal and the total compensation awarded was reduced as a result of the re-calculation, after deducting one-third of the income. Thus, the compensation amount was re- worked as Rs.3,91,333/-with a proportionate deducting in cost also, limiting it to Rs.7000/-. Challenging the award thus passed by the Tribunal, this appeal has been preferred by petitioners 1 to 3.

4. However, we notice that 4th respondent, mother, is not even impleaded as a respondent in this case.

5. This appeal was preferred as early as in 2004, but the appellants filed a petition as I.A.No.3736/2009 (just at the eve of the hearing of the matter), producing certain additional documents. I.A.No.3735 of 2009 was also filed in a similar manner which is a petition seeking amendment of the appeal memorandum by incorporating additional grounds