The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the importance of registration and possession in determining liability for compensation.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short, 'the MV Act, 1988') against the award, dated 28-9-1982, passed, in MAC Case No. 2/93, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Darrang, determining a sum of Rs. 52,000/- as compensation for the death of the claimant's 12/13 year old daughter.

2. The case of the claimant may, in brief, be described thus : While the claimant's daughter, Rupanjali Bora, was proceeding, on 7-12-1992, to her school, the offending vehicle, namely, Ambassador car, bearing registration No. WMD 3689, ran over Rupanjali at National Highway No. 52 at Bheberghat, Mongoldoi town. Rupanjali sustained grievous injuries as a result of the said accident and succumbed to her injuries at the hospital.

3. The claimant, then, made an application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, and sought for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. A claim proceeding was accordingly initiated against one Nishiranl Hazarlka, who is respondent No. 1 herein, as owner of the vehicle. However, during the progress of the claim proceeding, when it came to light that M/s. Jindal and Co. of Calcutta was the registered owner of the vehicle, M/s. Jindal and Co. was also served with notice. While M/s. Jindal and Co. did not contest the proceeding, the respondent No. 1 herein contested the proceeding by filing written statement, her case being, in brief, thus : The respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the vehicle and was, therefore, not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The learned tribunal determined a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as the total compensation and held M/s. Jindal and Co. as the owner of the vehicle, liable to pay compensation to the claimant, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of making of the claim application. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, so awarded, and also contending, inter alia, that the liability to pay compensation ought to have been imposed on Smt. Nishi Rani Hazarika (i.e. respondent No. 1 herein), the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. D. Mazurndar, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. T. Bidyut Bikash and Mr. J. Kalita, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 4 respectively. I have also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury and B.C. Das, learned senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae.

5. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that at the time of the accident, the claimant's daughter, Rupanjali, was aged about 12/13 years and she was a student of class VIII. In these circumstances, what shall be the compensation is the question. Though material distinction exists between the factors, which govern the determination of the amount of compensation under Section 166 and the one under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988, and there are distinct advantages as well as disadvantages in claiming compensation under Section 166 vis-a-vis Section163A of the M.V. Act, 1988, the guidelines given in the structured formula, framed under Section163A, may be applied, in an appropriate case, while determining compensation, in a claim for compensation arising under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988.

6. According to the structured formula given under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, the notional income of a person up to the age of 15 years may be taken to be Rs. 15,000/-. In the present case, since the said deceased was aged about 13/14 years at the time of her death, it will not be unreasonable to treat her notional income as Rs. 15,000/- and if 1/3rd of this notional income is deducted and 15 is applied as the multiplier, the compensation works out to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. To this amount needs to be added Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 as loss of the estate. So calculated, the compensation comes to an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/-.

7. Turning to the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 herein could have been held responsible, or jointly or severally liable, to pay compensation to the