The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sections 166 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in determining the compensation for a fatal accident, and the adjustment of the compensation and the rate of interest by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent-insurance company and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 14.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIth Additional District Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.121 of 1997 awarding a sum of Rs.3,29,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded and oral objection to finding of fact as far as licence is concerned and compensation is concerned.

4. The accident took place on 24.1.1997. The deceased was 56 years of age. Deceased-Man Singh Yadav who was 56 years of age left behind him, his widow, two minor son and two minor daughter which fact is not in dispute. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.15,000/-per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 8.

5. In this appeal a very technical issue has arisen before this Court in appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is contended that in the body of the application for compensation, the appellants had mentioned that the application was filed under Section 166 and 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Claim petition was filed in the year 2000; namely, much before the judgment in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda, AIR 2004 SC 2017, has held that claim petition preferred u/s 163A is under No Fault Liability and though decided the petition as of it is under Section 166 of Act granted compensation as per Section 163A whether such approach is sustainable.

6. It is clear that the matter when it proceeded, the learned Judge also mentioned that it was filed under Section 166 read with Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and while passing the award granted a sum of Rs.3,29,500/-holding that under the Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the said amount was admissible and granted interest at the rate of 12%. The Tribunal has decided issue no.1, namely, the issue of negligence in favour of claimants.

7. It is contended by Sri R.K.Porwal, learned counsel for appellants that the matter has been decided as per Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, if the Tribunal had decided the issue of negligence and it cannot grant compensation as per Section 163A which bad in eye of law. The income slab was not considered by the Tribunal as income of deceased was exceeding Rs.40,000/- per annum as per schedule.

8. Sri R.K.Porwal, learned Advocate further submits that in the year 1997, it was a general tradition to file claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 163A of Act as it was considered that to be interim application under 163A was interim compensation. Application substituting Section 140 of Act.

9. Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the income of the deceased should be considered to be at least Rs.15,294/-per month. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has granted the split multiplier of 8 for three years of service which would be 9 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC).

10. As against this, Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent insurance company submits that just because the issue of negligence was decided it cannot be said that the matter was decided under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The