JACOB Vs. K T MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the High Court calculate compensation in a different method than that is provided under the Second Schedule, when claims are filed under S.163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). Facts of the case are not disputed.

(2.) A youngster at the age of 28 died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.5.1997 when a tempo van having Reg. No.KL-10/B 1017 driven by the second respondent hit the motor cycle ridden by the deceased. The parents, brothers and sisters filed a claim for compensation under S.163(A) of the Act against the owner, driver and the insurer of the tempo van alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo van. The above was numbered as O.P.(MV) No.544/97 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The owner and the driver (first and second respondents) did not appear before the Tribunal and they were declared ex parte. The Insurance Company obtained permission under S.170 of the Act and contested the case questioning the quantum of compensation claimed. No oral evidence was adduced in the claim. Exts.A1 to A10 documents were marked by the claimants. The Tribunal awarded only a total compensation of Rs.67,500/- against the claim of Rs.4,60,500/-. Hence, the claimants filed this appeal.

(3.) According to the claimants, the deceased was the Manager of Anupama Jewellery, Thrissur. Ext.A10 certificate was produced stating that at the time of death he was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal did not accept the above as the monthly income because that certificate was not properly proved. The Jewellery owner was not examined. The wage registers etc. kept in the Jewellery were not also produced to find out the actual salary paid to the deceased or to show that he was actually employed in the Jewellery. Not even oral evidence was adduced to show that the deceased was employed and getting Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal did not accept Ext.A10 certificate. In the absence of evidence regarding actual income earned by the deceased, Rs.15,000/- is taken as the notional income per year and Rs.10,000/- is taken as the loss of dependency as per the Second Schedule. We see no ground to differ from the findings of the Tribunal in this aspect. Even after taking Rs.10,000/- as annual loss of dependency income, the Tribunal did not follow the Second Schedule for calculating the compensation.