Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—U.P.S.R.T.C. (defendant/appellant) has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.7.09 passed by the Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T. Court No. 5 Itawa in M.A.C.P. No. 128/2008, Raghuraj Singh and another v. U.P.S.R.T.C. by which the claim petition of Raghuraj Singh and another filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Raghuraj Singh and his wife Smt. Manorma filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a compensation of Rs. 234500/- for the death of their daughter Kumari Sarita in a motor accident. It was alleged in the petition that on 1.2.2008 Kumari Sarita was returning from the school to her house and when she was standing at the road side on the National Highway No. 2, Itawa, Kanpur road, near village Saraijalal, at about 12.45 p.m. a roadways bus No. UP79-4459 came from Itawa side. The bus was being driven by its driver at a very fast speed and in a careless manner. The driver dashed the bus against Kumari Sarita, who sustained grievous injury and died at the spot.

3. A First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station Ikdil, District Itawa by one Ramdas. The case was registered at crime No. 18/08 for the offences under Sections 279, 338, 304-A, I.P.C.. It was further alleged in the petition that at the time of death Kumari Sarita was ten years of age and was studying in class 5th.

4. The opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C filed its written statement and alleged that the aforesaid accident did not take place with the said bus. On 1.2.08 the bus had departed from Itawa at 11 a.m. and had reached Oraiya at 1.30 p.m. and at the time of alleged accident, that is at 12.45 p.m., the bus was near the place Ajitmal.

5. On the pleadings of the aparties the learned Tribunal framed issue No. 1 as to whether the accident in question took place on 1.2.08 at 12.45 p.m. near village Saraijalal and due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. UP 79- 4459 death of Kumari Sarita was caused. Issue No. 2 was framed with regard to the compensation to which the claimants were entitled.

6. The learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence of the claimants as well as of the opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C came to the conclusion that Kumari Sarita was hit by aforesaid bus and died in this accident. The Tribunal then allowed the compensation amounting to Rs. 154500/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

7. In this appeal we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant namely, Sri Lalan Verma and have also perused the record as has been filed with the appeal.

8. The petition has been filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

“Section 163-A of the M.V.A. was inserted by Act 54 of 1994 by way of a social security scheme. It is needless to say that the said provision is a Code by itself. The said provision has been inserted to provide for a new predetermined structured formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income of the deceased or the person suffering permanent disablement. In view of the language used in said section there could be no manner of doubt that the said provision has an overriding effect as it contains a non obstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is liable to pay compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.[Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2009 (3) TAC 13 (SC)].”

9. Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act runs as under :

“163-A Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis :

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or ins