1 fa674.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.674 OF 1998 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Appellant vs. 1 Ramasuzhan Shivalak Pande 2 Smt.Ahilyadevi Ramasuzhan Pande 3 P.R.Singh ...Respondents Ms A.A.Agarwal for the appellant Mr.G.S.Hegde for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 7, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. the appellant which is insurer of the offending vehicle has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 11 th March 1998 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. A claim petition was filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 claiming compensation on account of death of their 7 years old boy in a motor accident involving a motor vehicle insured with the appellant. The claim petition was specifically filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). After calculating compensation in accordance with Second Schedule to the said Act, the tribunal proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 1,54,500/-. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 2 fa674.sxw the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum taken by the tribunal is erroneous. Inviting attention of the Court to clause (6) of second schedule, she submitted that the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum can be taken only in case the persons who were capable of earning but they were not earning. She submitted that in the present case, the deceased was 7 years old boy and by no stretch of imagination, his notional income could have been taken at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The claim petition was specifically filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. In such a claim petition, the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death was caused due to any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or any other persons. Sub section 1 of section 163-A of said Act provides that the compensation has to be granted as provided in the second schedule. 4 The validity of the provision of section 163A of the said Act has been upheld. Though the Apex Court has repeatedly observed that there are defects in the Second Schedule and that the said schedule needs correction,the Central Government has not exercised statutory power under sub-section 3 of section 163A by amending the second schedule. 5 Under the impugned Award, what has been done by the tribunal is that the structured formula in the Second Schedule has been followed. While calculating the compensation payable as per the structured formula, the income of a non-earning person has to be taken as per clause (a) of the paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule 3 fa674.sxw which is Rs.15,000/- per annum. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned Award as the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal has followed the structured formula under Second Schedule r/w section 163A of the said Act. 6 No case for interference is made out. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application no.6450 of 1998 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 7 The appellant will be entitled to refund of the amount deposited under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 together with interest accrued thereon. JUDGE