The court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in determining the maintainability of claims under section 163-A and the calculation of compensation.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

The Claimants in O.P.(M.V.)No.222 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur are the appellants herein. The appellants originally filed the Application seeking Compensation under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Compensation for the death of Mohanan Pillai, the husband of the First Claimant, father of Claimants 2 and 3 and son of the Fourth Claimant. According to them, on 7.2.2005 at about 3 p.m. while the deceased Mohanan Pillai was engaged in loading wooden pieces into a mini lorry with registration No.KL-01-D-4350 at Manjamonkala-Thiruvazhy public road, the lorry suddenly moved forward by the driver and on account of the same, the deceased fell down from the lorry and a big piece of wood from the hands of the co-worker fell on him and he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. They originally claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on various heads not restricted to the claim provided in the IInd schedule to section 163-A of the Act, which reads as follows:

PART-I
(a) Transportation of the deceased	Rs. 3,000.00
(b) Damages to clothing and Articles	Rs. 2,000.00
(c) Others: including expense for postmortem, Funeral Ceremony etc.	Rs. 25,000.00
PART-II
(d) Compensation for pain and sufferings of the deceased and mental shock, Agony etc. of the petitioners	Rs. 20,000.00
(e) Compensation for loss of consortium, Love and affection	Rs. 20,000.00
(f) Compensation For Loss of Estate	Rs. 20,000.00
(g) Compensation for the death, Loss of Life Expectation, Loss of Earnings, etc.	Rs.3,10,000.00
Total	Rs.4,00,000.00

2. Further they also claimed Rs.6,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased as a loading worker and the application was filed on 29.3.2007. Subsequently they filed I.A.No. 1134 of 2009 seeking amendment of column 6 of the claim petition restricting the monthly income to Rs.3,300/- so as to bring the application maintainable under section 163-A of the Act taking into consideration the view expressed in the decision of the Supreme Court.

3. Originally the insurance company was not impleaded. Later additional third respondent was impleaded as the insurer of the vehicle as per order in I.A. No. 1134 of 2009.

4. The second respondent did not appear.

5. The First Respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that it was not a Motor Vehicle accident and it was not due to any motor vehicle accident as alleged. It happened while he was carrying a log along with other Co-Workers and the log fell over the head of Mohanan Pillai and he sustained injuries which resulted in his death. The deceased was taken to Taluk Hospital, Punalur. The owner of the logs, Mr.Anandan, gave statement to the Police and the Police registered a case under the caption 'unnatural death'. Thereafter the applicants filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur stating false allegations. So the vehicle is not involved in the accident. The compensation claimed is without any legal basis. They are not entitled to get any compensation. He further contended that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent and the compensation if any awarded has to be paid by them. He prayed for dismissal of the Application.

6. The additional Third Respondent filed a statement more or less adopting the contentions raised by the First Respondent denying the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. According to them, it is not a motor vehicle accident but they admitted the insurance of the vehicle with them. They further contended that there is no contractual liability to indemnify the loading workers. They denied the age, income, occupation of the d