The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on a structured formula basis and outlines the requirements for claimants to seek compensation.

1. This Civil First Appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 1st June, 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama, in a claim petition titled Mst. Jali & Ors. Vs. State and others, which shall be hereinafter referred to as impugned award.

Factual Background:

2. Claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama, on 9th May, 2001 for grant of compensation on the grounds that deceased Mohammad Ashraf Kumar, was an employee in the office of appellants-non-applicants and was working in the office of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Srinagar, as Helper Deceased was holding a driving licence and came to be directed to drive vehicle bearing registration No. BL-B Model BEHL vide order dated 18th December, 1997 as averred in the claim petition and met with an accident on 22nd September, 1998 while performing his duties, at Pahlipora road. Deceased in order to save his life jumped out of the vehicle but he sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Further, it is averred in the claim petition that deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident and was drawing salary of Rs. 3,383/-. Deceased left behind widow, children and parents i.e. claimants-respondents.

3. Respondents filed written statement/objections and following issues came to be framed:

"1. What was the income and age of the deceased at the time of accident? .............. OPP

2. What was the dependency of the deceased at the time of death and whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? ................. OPP

3. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the case? ....... OPP

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? .......... OPR

5. Relief

4. Exparte award dated 27th November, 2002 came to be passed, which came to be assailed by the appellants-non applicants by the medium of C1MA No.79/2003. The said appeal came to be allowed and award came to be set-aside and case was remanded back.

5. Parties examined witnesses. Claimants-respondents examined Mohammad Sultan Kumar and Mst. Jali, claimant, also appeared as witness. Witnesses deposed that deceased was on duty at Shopian and was driving Dozer -vehicle of the non applicants- appellants. Deceased was 35 years of age and was drawing Rs. 3300/- and left behind widow, children and parents i.e. claimants-respondents. Deceased was maintaining the claimants.

6. Appellants have examined only one witness, Mohammad Yousuf Shah, who has deposed that deceased was employee of non applicants- appellants. On 22nd September, 1998 deceased was driving a Loader at Shopian, and accident occurred and he died on spot. The date of birth of the deceased was 6lh January, 1963 as per service record and was working in the grade of Rs.750-900 and was drawing Rs.3300/- as salary per month. The non-applicants-appellants have granted all benefits in favour of the widow in terms of SRO 122 read with SRO 43.

Issuewise finding:

Issue No. 1.

7. There is clinching evidence on the file that deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident and was drawing Rs. 3500/- per month and accordingly Tribunal rightly held that deceased was drawing Rs. 3500/- as salary per month. The finding returned by the trial court is perfectly correct, needs no interference.

Issue No.2.

8. The averments contained in the claim petition that the claimants-respondents have lost source of dependency and were dependent on deceased stands proved and appellants have not rebutted the said averment. There is sufficient proof on the file that claimants-respondents were dependents of the deceased and have lost source of dependency.

Issue Nos. 3 and 4.

9. It appears that this claim petition came to be filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly compensation came to be awarded.

10. Learned counsel for the non-applicants-appellants argued that claim petition was not maintainable for the reasons that deceased was driver and claimants or his legal heirs cannot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document