Maintainability under Section 163-A is void if the deceased's income exceeds statutory limits; courts must adjudicate under Section 166 instead.

1. The claimants in OP (MV) No. 222 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur are the appellants herein. Appellants originally filed the application seeking compensation under S.163 - A of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Mohanan Pillai, the husband of the claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of the claimant No. 4. 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 was 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 Second Schedule to S.163 - A of the Act, which reads as follows:

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 IA 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 S.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 respondent No. 3 was impleaded as the insurer of the vehicle as per order in IA No. 1134 of 2009.

4. The respondent No. 2 did not appear.

5. The respondent No. 1 entered appearance and filed the 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, 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 respondent No. 3 and the compensation if any awarded has to be paid by them. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

6. The additional respondent No. 3 filed a statement more or less adopting the contentions raised by the respondent No. 1 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, occupation, income of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioners. According to them, he was not having any income. They prayed for dismissal of the application.

7. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exhs. A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants. Exhs. B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the additional respondent No. 3.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred by the user of the vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,97,500 as fo