The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 163A, in establishing the liability of the insurer and the legal heirs of the deceased owner, and the requirement for evidence-based calculation of compensation.

A.B. Pal, J.

1. The Judgment and award dated 1st June 2005 in MAC Case No. 143 of 2004 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizwal stands impugned in this appeal by M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short the Insurer). By the said judgment an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-(Rupees four lacs eighty thousands) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization has been awarded making the insurer liable to pay the entire amount.

2. The material facts giving rise to the claim proceeding originates from a motor accident on 1lth July, 2004 claiming the life of one Teichhuma, aged about 34 years. The vehicle by which the deceased along with other passengers were travelling was a mini bus bearing registration No. MZ-06/0184 owned by one Lalramchangsanga, who himself was driving the vehicle. The owner met his end in the said accident. Some other passengers also died. The cause of the accident was later found to be sudden steering failure.

3. In the claim petition filed by the elder brother of Teichhuma, the owner of the said vehicle (though dead) was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 1 and the Insurer as Opposite Party No. 2, presumably because the death of the owner was not known to the claimant at the time of filing the claim petition. Even in para-2 of the judgment impugned the learned tribunal observed that the Opposite Party No. 1 did not contest the case. But in para 6 of the judgment, the tribunal observed that the Opposite Party No. 2 (Insurer) prayed for contesting the case on all or any of the grounds available to the Opposite Party No. 1 (owner of the vehicle), who died in the said accident. If the tribunal at any stage of the proceeding came to know about the death of the owner it is not intelligible why the claimant was not directed to implead the legal heirs of the deceased owner. Be that as it may, the Insurer was granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act whereupon the claim was contested on all grounds. It was contended by the Insurer that the claim was not maintainable, as the accident had taken place due to steering failure of the said vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle was not found to be negligent, it was argued that the claim for compensation by the elder brother of the deceased was not legally tenable. The learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Pramila Bordoloi v. Blue Hills Travels Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2002 (1) TAC 533 (Gau) to hold that mere absence of negligence on the part of the driver does not disentitle a claimant from an otherwise rightful claim of compensation. As the deceased died a bachelor, learned tribunal placing reliance on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Kishan Lal v. Bharosi Lal reported in 2001 (1) TAC 177, held that the elder brother is also a legal heir of the unmarried deceased.

4. As regards the quantuam of compensation the learned tribunal relied on the structured formula given in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- (rupees four thousands) per month the tribunal reduced the amount to Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) as annual income which is the highest slab in the said schedule. The learned tribunal arrived Rs.4,53,333/ by at Rs.4,53,333/ -by multiplying Rs.40,000/- with 17 and reducing the amount by one third. Thereafter a conventional amount of Rs.27,000/- on account of general damages was added to make the total amount to Rs.4,80,333.00. Thus, Rs.4,80,000/- to make it around figure, came to be awarded.

5. Mr. George Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the method of calculation adopted by the learned tribunal is wrong and arbitrary in as much as there is absolutely no proof on record to support that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/-annually, as held by the learned tribunal. The only documentary evidence in support of the claim is a certificate issued by the Pres