JUDGMENT (ORAL) Wangdi, J. This Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 07-05-2013 of the Learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West Sikkim at Namchi (in short “Learned Claims Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T. Case No.32 of 2011 by which the claim for death compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the Appellant, was rejected. 2. The Appellant is the brother of the deceased and the Respondents No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs and representatives of Ram Singhasan Prasad, the owner of the truck bearing registration No.SK-03/1208, that met with the fatal accident. 3. There is no dispute of the fact that the deceased was employed as a handy boy in the truck bearing registration No.SK-03/1208 that met with an accident while travelling from Soreng, West Sikkim to Jorethang, South Sikkim on 07-12-2010. It is also not disputed that the deceased had died in that accident. 4. From the records of the Learned Claims Tribunal it appears that notice of the Claim Petition was issued to all the Respondents including the Respondent No.4, the insurer, but despite its service the Respondent No.4 failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded ex parte. We may not delay ourselves further on the other facts of the case as they are irrelevant and inconsequential for the purpose of disposal of this Appeal. 5. While disposing off the case, the Learned Claims Tribunal appears to have framed five issues out of which issues no.1 and 5, in our view, appear to be relevant. For convenience, the two issues are reproduced below: Issue No.1 Whether the deceased late Padam Bahadur Darjee died in a motor vehicle accident while travelling from Soreng to Jorethang in the vehicle bearing Registration No:SK-03/1208 (Tata Truck) on 07.12.2010 at Vir Dara near Soeng Bazar, West Sikkim? Issue No.5 Whether Claimant are entitled for compensations prayed, if so, who is liable to pay the compensation? 6. Issue No.1 While dealing with this issue, the Learned Claims Tribunal appears to have arrived at the conclusion that the Claimant/Appellant had failed to prove that it was Padam Darjee who had died in a motor vehicle accident on 07-12-2010. The Tribunal found that there was a doubt as regards the identity of the deceased as the name of the deceased has been found mentioned as ‘Padam Gurung alias Binod @ Maila’, ‘S/O Lt. The Tribunal found that there was a doubt as regards the identity of the deceased as the name of the deceased has been found mentioned as ‘Padam Gurung alias Binod @ Maila’, ‘S/O Lt. Jai Bir Galay’ in the certified true copy of the ‘Dead body Identification Memo’ Exhibit 7. The certificate, Exhibit 11, issued by the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat, Darjeeling Pul-Bazar Development Block, Bijanbari, certifying that Late Padam Darjee and three others were the sons and daughters of Late Jaibir Darjee and permanent residents of Upper Sumbuck Busty, P.O. Jhepi, P.S.Pulbazar in the District of Darjeeling, was rejected by the Learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that the person who issued the certificate, Exhibit 11 was not examined in order to prove its content and that he had also failed to prove his relation with the deceased Padam Gurung, son of Late Jai Bir Ghalay. It was also noted that the name appearing in the certificate, Exhibit 11, did not tally with the one contained in the Identification Memo, Exhibit 7 in as much as in Exhibit 11 the name of father of the Claimant is entered as ‘Jaibir Darjee’ whereas in Exhibit 7 it has been entered as ‘Jai Bir Galay’. It was thus concluded that the Appellant/Claimant had failed to prove that the deceased was indeed his brother Padam Dajree and not someone else named Padam Gurung. 7. Issue No.5 Consequential to the finding on issue no.1, this said issue was decided against the Claimant as the Claims Tribunal came to the finding that the Claimant had failed to prove that he was the legal representative of the deceased because “he failed to prove his relation with the deceased Padam Gurung who died in the accident”. 8. Upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the sole question for determination in the present case is as to whether the deceased was ‘Padam Darjee’, the brother of the Appellant/Claimant. If, upon consideration of the evidence on record, it is found that the deceased is indeed Padam Darjee naturally the Appeal would succeed and the Appellant would be entitled to the claims as set out in the Claims Petition as would be permissible under the law. 9. Mr. If, upon consideration of the evidence on record, it is found that the deceased is indeed Padam Darjee naturally the Appeal would succeed and the Appellant would be entitled to the claims as set out in the Claims Petition as would be permissible under the law. 9. Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would submit that the Learned Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 has overlooked the glaring documentary evidence appearing on the records which if appreciated would have resulted in the case being decided otherwise in favour of the Appellant. The Learned Claims Tribunal, as per him, has placed reliance on upon Exhibit 7, the Dead Body Identification Memo, in isolation of other documents in deciding issue no.1. Had the other documents like (i) ‘Residential Certificate’ issued by the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat one of the Exhibits under Exhibit 11 (collectively); (ii) the certificate issued by the deceased owner, Ram Singhasan Prasad dated 19-03-2013 marked Exhibit 12; and (iii) the certificate, Exhibit 11 dated 10-03-2011 issued by the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat, been examined and considered along with Exhibit 7, it would have indubitably established that the deceased who died in the accident was no one else but ‘Padam Darjee’, the brother of the Appellant. It is stated that rejection of Certificate Exhibit 11 issued by Jhepi Gram Panchayat which certified that the Appellant, Man Bahadur Darjee was the brother of Padam Darjee, is grossly untenable in law as it was issued by a Public Body, namely, a Gram Panchayat constituted under the Panchayat Act and, therefore, a public document. 10. Mr. Upadhyaya went on to submit that strict rule of evidence would not apply in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act which by its very nature is summary and that it is not necessary that each and every fact ought to be proved if on a consideration of the documents and evidence on the whole would lead one to an irrefutable conclusion that the assertion of the Claimant is correct. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Shanmugham vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation : 2007 (1) T.A.C. 706 (Madras). 11. Mr. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Shanmugham vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation : 2007 (1) T.A.C. 706 (Madras). 11. Mr. Manish Jain, Learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No.4-Insurance Company, on the other hand submits that there is no error in the judgment as the doubt expressed by the Learned Claims Tribunal as to whether the deceased is indeed Padam Darjee is justified and cannot be overlooked. Exhibit 7, the ‘Dead Body Identification Memo’, itself indicates that the deceased has been identified as ‘Padam Gurung’ and not ‘Padam Darjee’. Under these circumstances, as per Mr. Jain, the Appellant ought to have produced credible evidence to prove his claim to the contrary. 12. Upon consideration of the submissions, the Claim Petition before the Learned Claims Tribunal, the documentary and oral evidence available on the records, I am of the firm view that the Appeal deserves to be allowed. 13. The approach of the Learned Claims Tribunal has not been in the spirit of the law under which the present proceeding has arisen and appears to have adopted a hyper-technical approach and has been pedantic in dealing with the evidence. From the finding at paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment while deciding on issue no.1, it appears that the Learned Claims Tribunal has heavily relied upon the document Exhibit 7 which is the ‘Dead Body Identification Memo’ where we indeed find certain discrepancy in the name of the deceased mentioned therein. Rejection of the certificate issued by Jhepi Gram Panchayat dated 10-03-2011 marked as one of the documents Exhibit 11 (collectively), does not appear to be sound in law in as much as it has been rejected solely on the ground that the maker of the document had not been produced as a witness to prove its content. On a bare perusal of the said document, Exhibit 11 (collectively), we find that it has been issued under the seal and signature of the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat, in the letter head of the Jhepi Gram Panchayat. There is no denial of the fact that Jhepi Gram Panchayat had been formed under the Panchayat Act and, therefore, a Statutory Body. It is also not the case of the Respondent No.4 that Jhepi Gram Panchayat did not exit. There is no denial of the fact that Jhepi Gram Panchayat had been formed under the Panchayat Act and, therefore, a Statutory Body. It is also not the case of the Respondent No.4 that Jhepi Gram Panchayat did not exit. The document certainly would fall under the provision of Clause (iii) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since Secretary of a Gram Panchayat is undeniably a Public Officer whose seal Courts can take judicial notice of under Sub-Section (6) of Section 57 of the Evidence Act not discounting the fact that under Section 82 of the Evidence Act a Court can presume that the seal, stamp or signature is genuine, and that the person signing it (in the present case the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat) held, at the time when he signed it, the official character which he claims. Moreover, from the records we find that these are not the only documents on the records but also find the following:- (i) Certificate issued by the deceased owner of the vehicle Ram Singhasan Prasad, Exhibit 12, which certifies that Late Padam Bahadur Ghalay (Darjee), son of Late Jaibir Ghalay (Darjee) Sumbuck Jhepi, West Bengal was engaged as a ‘khalashi’ (handy boy) in his vehicle no.SK-03/1208 and that he had died in the accident and further that he used to be paid a daily wage of Rs.100/-, i.e., Rs.3000/- per month. (ii) Residential Certificate issued by the Jhepi Gram Panchayat signed by the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat Exhibit 11 (collectively) which certifies that Shri Padam Bahadur Ghalay (Darjee) son of Late Jai Bir Ghalay (Darjee) is an ordinary resident of Upper Sumbuck, Ward No.V, P.O. Ghepi, P.S. Pulbazar under Jhepi Gram Panchayat in the Darjeeling District and that the name of his father/mother appear in part No.23/15, Sl. No.039 of the electoral Rolls. (iii) The Identity Card of the Appellant, Exhibit 18, issued by the Election Commission of India. 14. When we consider these documents with the ‘Dead Body Identification Memo’, Exhibit 7, there can be no doubt of the fact that the deceased was the Appellant’s brother, Padam Bahadur Darjee and not Padam Gurung as has been found entered in Exhibit 7. (iii) The Identity Card of the Appellant, Exhibit 18, issued by the Election Commission of India. 14. When we consider these documents with the ‘Dead Body Identification Memo’, Exhibit 7, there can be no doubt of the fact that the deceased was the Appellant’s brother, Padam Bahadur Darjee and not Padam Gurung as has been found entered in Exhibit 7. The key evidence that leads me to this definite conclusion is the name of the father appearing in the Identification memo, Exhibit 7, which has been entered as “Late Jai Bir Ghalay” and is identical to the one entered in Residential Certificate, Exhibit 11 (collectively) read with the Certificate, Exhibit 12, issued by the owner of truck which also confirms of “Padam Bahadur Ghalay” having died when his truck bearing registration no.Sk-03/1208 met with the accident at Soreng bhir. 15. Another certificate, Exhibit 11 (collectively) bearing Ref. No.07/JGP/2011 dated 10-03-2011, issued by the Jhepi Gram Panchayat sets at rest any doubt as to whether Appellant is the brother of the deceased. We may reproduce the content of this certificate which reads as follows: “Office of the Jhepi Gram Panchayat (Darjeeling Pul-Bazar Development Block, Bijanbari) P.O. Jhepi, Bijanbari –Darjeeling. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Ref no:-07/JGP/2011. Dated:-10/03/2011. This is to certify that Sri, Man Bahadur Darje. Son of Late Jaibir Darjee. is a permanent resident of Upper-Sumbuck Busty, P.O.Jhepi, P.S Pulbaazr (sic) in the district of Darjeeling to personally known to me. Further, certify that Sri, Man Bahadur Darjee. is a (sic) Legal Brother of Late Padam Darjee (Ghalay). His Family details: (1) Sri, Man Bahadur Darjee. S/o Late, Jaibir Darjee.EPIC NO LMC3193232. (2) Late, Padam Darjee. S/o Late, Jaibir Darjee.(Death) (3) Smt, Basanti Darjee. D/o Late, Jaibir Darjee. (Married). (4) Smt, Madhu Darjee. D/o Late, Jaibir Darjee. (Married). Sd/- 10/03/2011 (Seal) EA/Secretary Jhepi Gram Panchayat [underlining mine]” 16. From all these, it can be concluded firmly that the deceased is none other than Padam Bahadur Darjee and not Padam Gurung as found wrongly entered in the document, Exhibit 7. 17. Mr. Manish Jain, Learned Advocate, no doubt questioned the authenticity of the residential certificate, Exhibit 11, on the ground that other than the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat, it has not been countersigned by the Block Dev. 17. Mr. Manish Jain, Learned Advocate, no doubt questioned the authenticity of the residential certificate, Exhibit 11, on the ground that other than the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat, it has not been countersigned by the Block Dev. Officer but this submission although is found to be factually correct, that by itself, in my view, would not be sufficient to diminish the findings when we consider it with the other documentary evidence available on the records. 18. From the above, when we consider the evidence in its entirety, apart from confirming that the Appellant is the brother of the deceased, it also clearly establishes that deceased was Padam Bahadur Darjee (Ghaley) as stated in the certificate, Exhibit 12, issued by the owner of the truck with which we have already dealt with earlier. 19. Having held as above, the other aspect that requires determination is as to whether the Claim Petition is maintainable having been filed by the Appellant who is the brother of the deceased. In order to arrive at a finding on this, it requires to be determined as to whether the Appellant/Claimant is a dependant of the deceased. In the Claim Petition we find that the Claimant/Appellant has averred that “he was the dependent upon the income of the deceased person and he is the legal heir of the deceased”. This fact has not been denied neither before the Learned Claims Tribunal for the entire period commencing from 29-08-2012 when the Respondent No.4 proceeded ex parte to 07-05-2013 on which day the impugned judgment was pronounced, nor before this Court except to the limited extent dealt with earlier. Under these circumstances, I find no reason to disbelieve the claim of the Appellant/Claimant that he is a dependant of the deceased thereby entitling him to make the claim for the death compensation of his brother Padam Bahadur Darjee (Ghalay). The Claim Petition is, therefore, held to be maintainable. 20. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the Appellant has been able to successfully impeach the impugned judgment of the Learned Claims Tribunal. 21. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed. 22. Having arrived at the conclusion that the deceased is indeed Padam Bahadur Darjee (Ghalay), the brother of the Appellant, we may now proceed to consider on the question of determination of the compensation to be paid to the Appellant. 23. 21. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed. 22. Having arrived at the conclusion that the deceased is indeed Padam Bahadur Darjee (Ghalay), the brother of the Appellant, we may now proceed to consider on the question of determination of the compensation to be paid to the Appellant. 23. Usually it would have been the natural course for this Court to have remanded the case back to the Learned Claims Tribunal for a decision on this. However, in view of the fact that this case has been pending since the year 2011 and that the Respondent No.4 had failed to appear before the Learned Claims Tribunal despite notice and had been proceeded ex parte and, also that no serious objections have been raised before this other than what have been already discussed, I am of the view that it would neither be prudent nor in the interest of justice to resort to such a course. In view of this we may now proceed to compute the amount of compensation that the Appellant would be reasonably entitled to. 24. From the entry contained in the Dead Body Identification Memo, Exhibit 7, the age of the deceased has been indicated as 27 years. In the inquest report, exhibit 4 and the challan when a dead body sent for postmortem examination, exhibit 5, it is indicated as being 25 years. However, in my view, it will be reasonable to take 27 years as the age of the deceased for which the multiplier applicable in terms of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act would be 11. However, for the purpose of computation of the compensation it is the age of the Appellant/Claimant which is to be considered. As per the Claim Petition the age of the Appellant is 53 years as would appear from the affidavit sworn by him in support of the Claim Petition. There being no dispute of the fact that the Claimant is a dependant, a bachelor and dependant on the earnings of the deceased for his livelihood, the claim is computed as under:- Annual income of the deceased (Rs.3,000 x 12) Rs. 36,000.00 Applicable Multiplied -11 (36,000 x 11) Rs. 3,96,000.00 Less 50% Rs. 1,98,000.00 [As the Appellant is unmarried bachelor the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 applies] Add Funeral expenses Rs. 36,000.00 Applicable Multiplied -11 (36,000 x 11) Rs. 3,96,000.00 Less 50% Rs. 1,98,000.00 [As the Appellant is unmarried bachelor the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 applies] Add Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 Add Loss of estate Rs. 2,500.00 Total - Rs.2,02,500.00 Note -No medical expenses is awarded as deceased had died on the spot. Simple interest @ 10% per annum computed on the aforesaid amount w.e.f. the date of the claim until full and final settlement thereof. 25. The Respondent No.4 shall ensure that the payment of compensation is made to the Appellant within 30 days from today and not later than that. 26. Let a copy of this judgment along with the original records be transmitted forthwith to the Learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West Sikkim at Namchi for compliance.