(1.) -Pursuant to the order dated 3.7.2007, service record of the deceased was produced before the Court from which it appears that the date of birth of the deceased is 12.6.1970. Hence, acceptance of the post mortem report being a scientific record by the Tribunal, appears to be appropriate. Therefore, such dispute cannot be held to be sustainable. Although the case could have completed there but the learned counsel wanted to extend the scope. So far as the dependency is concerned, we have gone through the judgments of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, T.N.S.T.C. Ltd. v. K. I. Bindu and others, JT 2005 (10) SC 501 : 2006 (1) AWC 19 (SC) and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and two others, JT 2005 (4) SC 531. So far as the first judgment is concerned, the claimant was placed in the service of the deceased, therefore, the Court was pleased to reduce the compensation. That was a relevant factor for consideration. So far as the other case is concerned, the case in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, JT 1996 (5) SC 356 : 1996 (3) AWC 1489 (SC), was followed therein. It was held that the schedule under the Act is treated to be guide but not invariable ready reckoner. Therefore it was not followed rigidly. However, in the above cases, the claim petitions were filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 made for 'just' compensation. But the case under consideration herein is under Section 163A of the Act in which the schedule is propounded, therefore, the schedule is part of the enactment. Power under Section 166 is more discretionary than Section 163A of the Act. Hence, even agreeing with the proposition, we cannot ignore the schedule casually to suit the purpose but at an appropriate circumstance which is unavailable herein. Thus, we find that there is no merit in appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
(2.) NO order is passed as to costs.