(1.) The appellant herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. The appellant s brother. Pappachan alias Thomas sustained fatal injuries when a Jeep knocked down him on the public road, on 2nd November, 1995. The deceased succumbed to the injuries after 33 days of the accident. The deceased was an unmarried man. Other siblings of the deceased were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8 before the Tribunal. According to the appellant/ claimant the deceased was an Agriculturist earning monthly income of Rs. 2,500/-. The deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal found that neither the claimant nor the other sibling are dependents of the deceased, and hence they are not entitled for any compensation under the head of dependency. The Tribunal found that the appellant/ claimant as well as respondents 4 to 8 are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 26,500/-. But considering the provisions under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded. The claimant as well as respondents 4 to 8 were allowed equal right over the amount of compensation.
(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent Insurance Company. The appellant contended that the deceased was unmarried and having no issues, and that the deceased was living alongwith the appellant. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, even when a claim is raised under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal is obliged to bear in mind the quantum of compensation which the claimant would have received under Section 163-A and the compensation awarded under Section 166 can never be lesser than what is payable under the structured formula in Schedule II under Section 163-A of the Act, in support of the above contention Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Muneer, 2003 1 KerLT 137. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the compensation provided under Second Schedule in Section 163-A of the Act can be taken as a guideline while determining compensation under Section 166 also, and, therefore, the compensation for dependency ought to have been calculated based on the Second Schedule, is the contention. He had also placed reliance on the decision in Supe Dei (Smt.) and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2009 4 SCC 513.
(3.) In the case at hand the deceased was an unmarried Agriculturist aged 54 years. Sibling of the deceased are living separately alongwith their families. The deceased was living alongwith the appellant/claimant. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that neither the appellant nor respondents 4 to 8 are dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the claimants are not dependents on the deceased. The questions to be considered in such a situation is as to whether the Tribunal is bound to give minimum compensation payable under the structured formula.