K. Kannan, J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals are at the instance of the Corporation questioning the quantum of compensation assessed for injury and death. The contention is that the claim which is the subject in FAO No. 6252 of 2012 was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 when the evidence was that he was an agriculturist and he was also doing dairy business and was augmenting his income as a driver. The Court assessed the income at Rs. 5,000 and proceeded to determine the compensation by applying 1/4th deduction and adopting a multiplier of 13 on the basis of age of the deceased as entered in the post -mortem certificate as 48 years. Learned Counsel would contend that in a claim to be pursued under Section 163A, the annual income could not have been more than Rs. 40,000 and when the Tribunal was assessing the income at Rs. 5,000 it ought to have rejected the petition itself. Learned Counsel would further argue that the age as stated in the petition was 55 years but the Tribunal has taken the age as found in the post -mortem certificate. The Counsel would point out that the age of the wife of the deceased was itself shown to be 52 years and the husband could not have been 48 years of age. According to him, the claimant could not have traversed outside the pleadings. If both the contentions raised by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant were to be taken as correct, in this case, it must be observed that the Tribunal has proceeded to examine the evidence relating to the accident and has fixed the responsibility for the accident on the driver of the PRTC Bus. There was no necessity to examine the negligence aspect if a strict liability norm under Section 163A were to be applied. It is evident that the Court has literally treated the proceedings as under Section 166 and therefore if the Court was still proceeding to determine the compensation when it had assessed the income at Rs. 5,000, I cannot find any prejudice to have been caused. I will accord to the appellant the tenability of his contention that there could not have been evidence outside the pleadings and even if the age were taken only as 55 years the choice of multiplier could be seen to be on the higher side. It could have adopted only 11 as a multiplier. However, in this case the deceased was not merely an agriculturist. The claimant had given evidence that he had two other sources of income namely that he was a driver and he also was doing dairy business. The Court has rejected it stating that no documentary evidence was placed on record. If a person had been employed as a driver in a village or to be engaged in dairy business there could hardly be any documentary evidence. The Court ought to have accepted the evidence in the manner placed before it. The Tribunal could not taken his income only at Rs. 60,000 as annual income, I would find that to be grossly inadequate and the proper income should have been Rs. 7,500 and if a multiplier of 11 were to be adopted, the over all compensation could have been even more than what was awarded. I have no reason to suspect that the compensation assessed at Rs. 6,05,000 was on the higher side. The compensation was just and proper and the appeal challenging the quantum cannot, therefore, be sustained. I maintain the award and dismiss the appeal.
(2.) IN FAO No. 6251 of 2012 the claim was for injuries suffered in a motor accident where the Court had determined the compensation at Rs. 6,84,540 and all that the Court did was to add Rs. 10,000 towards transportation expenses. The assessment was extraordinary modest and I find no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. The amount of Rs. 25,000 which is deposited in both the appeals is directed to be transmitted to the credit of the case before the Tribunal in part satisfaction of the decree. Both the appeals are dismissed.;