The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of strict liability under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the limitations on compensation determination.

K. Kannan, J.

I The adjudication before the Tribunal.

1. Both the appeals relate to the same accident. The appeal by the owner is FAO No. 3460 of 2004 contending that the accident could not take place in the manner stated by the claimants and therefore, the liability cast on the owner was not tenable. FAO No. 4579 of 2004 is an appeal by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for the death that resulted in the accident The death was of a person aged 52 years who left behind a large family of wife and 8 children. The petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal assessed a compensation taking income at Rs. 36,000/- per annum and provided Rs. 2,64,000/- as compensation payable. The contention in defence had been that his vehicle had been parked on the katcha berm of the road due to the fact that the tyre had been punctured and the scooter came in the same direction and hit against the rear side of the insured vehicle. However, this version was not the case which the claimants gave before the Tribunal. A FIR lodged soon after the accident related the accident having occurred by the two vehicles coming from opposite direction and the accident took place only by the negligent driving of the appellant/driver of the car. Before the Tribunal the person who lodged the FIR was not examined but yet another person who claimed to be an eye witness stated that the accident had taken place only by the negligent driving of the car coming from the opposite direction. It rejected the version of the driver of the car that it had been stationary at the relevant time when the collision took place.

II Factual consideration-car driver responsible.-

2. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the car would contend that the presence of the person claiming to be an eye witness is indeed suspect for he had not given any complaint and the person who had actually given the complaint to the police had not even been examined. I will discard this argument for in summary proceedings under Section 169 of the Act, if statement recorded immediately after the accident sets out a particular manner about how the accident taken place, the recitals in the document would obtain sufficient credibility value for the Tribunal to act on. I do not think it is necessary to examine the author of the FIR to vouch for the recitals contained in the FIR. The car owner's argument would be that he had examined two witnesses to state that the vehicle had been stationary and it did not come in the opposite direction. I will not find also this to be relevant for if the collision is admitted even then the issue of negligence falls to insignificance more particularly when the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim made under Section 163-A of the Act was, therefore, required to be examined only by discounting the issue of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the car which was admittedly involved in the collision. I dismiss the appeal filed in FAO No. 3460 of 2004 as regards the arguments placed regarding the liability.

III Contention of claimants-claim under Section 163-A need not be restricted to formula under Schedule II.-

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants in FAO No. 4579 of 2004 would argue that even in a petition under Section 163A of the Act, the formula provided under Schedule II need not be followed. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court have provided for larger scale of compensation for conventional heads, such as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. A sure prospect of future increase is also considered in several decisions. The counsel would urge that in this case the deceased left behind his widow and 8 children and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have merely applied 1/3rd deduction but the formula provided in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, must be taken for d