1.This is claimants appeal against the award dated 28.2.2003, passed in Claim Case No. 3 of 2002, passed by the Chief Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, whereby as against claim of Rs. 4,67,000 an award of Rs. 1,72,000 was passed.

2.Brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2001, a truck bearing registration No. OR 05 - D 8801, driven by the non - applicant No. 1, Shikari Uraon, dashed the deceased Tarachand, who was travelling on bicycle, whereby he sustained injuries and subsequently died. The non - applicant No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was being insured with non - applicant No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

3. The learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence and documents on record and taking into account the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000 per annum, has granted an award of Rs. 1,72,000 including the other compensation and the liability was fastened on the insurance company.

4. No appeal has been filed by owner of the vehicle, therefore, finding arrived at by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 is not under challenge, the same is affirmed.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the quantum of compensation has wrongly been assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. He would further submit that the learned court below has assumed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000 per annum, whereas, the claimant, the wife has categorically stated that her husband, the deceased, used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month, therefore, he prays to re - compute the same.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company opposes the same and would submit that the order passed by the Tribunal is well merited, which does not call for any interference.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents and evidence on record.

8. The claimant AW 1, Dulasia Bai had stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as mason and was aged about 30 years and he used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month. The witness was cross - examined on the issue and admitted that no documents to this effect were filed about income of Rs. 3,000 per month. This fact can be taken note of that the deceased belonged to the unorganised sector and it can be assumed that in unorganised sector, the income is not documented. So it is very difficult for the persons like mason to prove the income by producing any documentary evidence, therefore, oral evidence with respect to income cannot be completely ignored.

9. In order to come to a finding of notional income, the reference is made to S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act . For the sake of brevity, S.163 - A is reproduced hereinbelow:
"163 - A. 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 or 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.
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle