Koshy, J.

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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 170 of the Act and contested the case questioning the quantum of compensation claimed. No oral evidence was adduced in the claim. Exhibits 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. Exhibit 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 getting Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal did not accept Exhibit 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.

4. The claim was filed under Section 163(A) of the Act. Section 163(A) reads as follows:

“Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.”

The court is bound to calculate the compensation in accordance with the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company cited many decisions of the Apex Court wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the second schedule is unscientific and it required modification (see U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra ((1996) 4 SCC 362). But, those observations were made when claims are filed under Section 166 of the Act. But, Section 163(A) of the Act and the second schedule were not declared unconstitutional and still in the statute book and the Courts are bound to follow it. It is true that when claims are filed under Section 166 of the Act, the court is not bound to follow the structural formula in the second schedule blindly and depending upon the circumstances, variations can be made even though the second schedule is to be followed as a guideline [see Jyoti Kaul v. State