JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the Award passed in O.P.(M.V)No.3074/2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (in short, the Tribunal). The claim petition has been filed by the legal heirs of deceased Gouridas under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- out of the death of deceased in a motor accident occurred on 19.07.2000 at about 10.45 pm while travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/D-6012 through Kunnamkulam – Kozhikode public road. It is alleged that while the vehicle reached at Kambipalam, the driver, second respondent, swerved the autorickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a lorry and thereby appellant and others sustained injuries. 2. It is alleged that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. First respondent is the owner, and third respondent is the insurer.

3. Before the Tribunal respondents 1 & 2 remained ex parte. Third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy coverage with respect to the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/D-6012 owned by the first respondent. It is further contended that autorickshaw stands in the name of the second respondent and second respondent was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. So the third respondent is not liable to indemnify the second respondent as he has violated the conditions of insurance policy.

4. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A9 marked from the side of the appellants. Ext.B1 marked from the side of the third respondent. Tribunal on evaluating the evidence, facts and circumstances found that the appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,59,500/-.

5. During the pendency of the claim petition, I.A.No.7087/2004 was filed by the third respondent, insurer to direct the 2nd respondent to produce the vehicular records as such R.C. Book, permit, fitness certificate as well as his driving licence.

6. Tribunal ordered the second respondent to produce the documents as sought for. Though notice was duly served upon the second respondent he did not turn up and the documents were not produced.

7. Hence the Tribunal ordered 3rd respondent to pay the amount and permitted recovery from the second respondent.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellants approached this Court in appeal for various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

9. Adv. V. Jayapradeep appeared for the third respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent.

10. Pending the appeal proceedings, second respondent died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional respondents 4 and 5 in the appeal. Notice was duly served.

But there was no appearance.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal taken notional income monthly as Rs.2,000/- per month and 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses and thereafter applied multiplier of '15' and dependency was arrived at Rs.2,40,000/-. Towards funeral expenses Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,500/- was awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and total amount of Rs.2,59,500/- was awarded. The amount so awarded is very less and hence he seeks for enhancement of compensation by accepting the income claimed by the appellant.

12. The claim petition admittedly has been filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 163A of the Act, reads as follows:

“163A. 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