(Per G. Bhavani Prasad, J.)

The insurer filed the petition for review of the judgment, dated 12-10-2007 in C.M.A. NO.380 of 2006.

2. The review petitioner desires to have the judgment reviewed on the ground of the assessment of loss having to be confined to the supervisory capacities only and the contribution by the deceased having to be assessed at a much lower level than two-thirds of the income in case of an agriculturist and a businessman. The reliance placed by the Court on the charge-sheet also has to be reconsidered and hence, the review petition relying on the precedents cited by the learned counsel for the review petitioner in the grounds of review and his written submissions.

3. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the review petitioner in his oral and written arguments desired preference to be given to EX.A-2 first information report but not EX.A-1 charge-sheet and when the deceased was not getting any salary, the income from business and agriculture has to be assessed with reference to the precedents cited. When the land still remains with the claimants as the legal heirs, the normal rule of deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to agricultural income. Similarly, there must be documentary evidence to establish business income. When there is no convincing evidence or proof of ownership of agricultural land, only notional income of Rs.15,000/- has to be taken into account and the appropriate multiplier for 38 years is 12. The judgment has to be delivered in accordance with the first information report under Rule 476 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules").

4. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment is susceptible to any review.

5. Point:

Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal was conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules states that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical officer.

6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal in terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evid