The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusivity of Section 163A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the limitations of the structured formula under Section 163A, and the scope of awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damages.

A.B. Pal, J.

1. The same common judgment and award dated 22.3.2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl passed in M.A.C. Case Nos. 79 and 80 of 2002 being impugned in the above two appeals preferred by the insurer appellant, I propose to dispose them by this common judgment.

2. In a motor accident that occurred on 2.5.2002, Lalthangveli and her husband K. Zomuana, sustained injuries. The vehicle bearing registration No. MZ 01-B 0498 involved in the accident was a truck, which they hired for carrying the sandstone. It was found later that the accident had taken place due to failure of the brake system and not due to any negligence on the part of the driver. No criminal case was, therefore, registered against the driver of the vehicle. The injuries sustained by the wife rendered her permanently disabled to the extent of 30 per cent only. The husband came to be permanently disabled to the extent of 3 per cent only.

3. While deciding the claim of compensation, the learned Tribunal accepted the claim of monthly income of the wife to be Rs. 3,500 (rupees three thousand five hundred) and multiplied the same by 12 and 17 (multiplier). 30 per cent (being disablement) of the said amount came to be Rs. 2,14,200, which has been added by an amount of Rs. 1,721 on medical expenses, Rs. 10,000 on non-pecuniary damages and Rs. 20,000 on mental stress to make the total amount of Rs. 2,55,921 (rupees two lakh fifty-five thousand nine hundred twenty-one). In case of the husband his income of Rs. 6,000 p.m. has been accepted by the Tribunal. The said amount has been multiplied by 12 and 13 multiplier and then 3 per cent (being disablement) of the said amount brought the loss of income to Rs. 28,080. The amount is added by Rs. 1,116 for medical expenses, Rs. 10,000 for non-pecuniary damages and Rs. 7,500 on account of pain and suffering and yet another Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities of life. Total amount thus has been brought to Rs. 56,696 and rounded to Rs. 56,700. In both the cases interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum has been allowed from the date of filing of the claim petition. Both the awards are under challenge on technical issue and the method of assessment as well.

4. I have heard Mr. M. Guite, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

5. The challenge to the said judgment is firstly on the ground that the claim cases were filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act'), the essential precondition of filing such a claim being that the annual income of the victim should not be more than Rs. 40,000. The claimant's wife stated in her claim application that her income was Rs. 3,500 per month, i.e., Rs. 42,000 annually. Similarly the monthly income of the husband has been stated to be Rs. 6,000, i.e., Rs. 72,000 annually. Thus, both the claims are not maintainable under Section 163A of the said Act. On the question whether the claim cases can be treated under Section 166 of the Act, the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer would argue that the two provisions being mutually exclusive such conversion is not legally permissible, in support of his submission the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Phelishsa Bakai. In the said case a Division Bench of this Court held, thus:

(75) ...Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, lays down two comprehensive and independent, but complete in itself mechanism for receiving compensation for injuries sustained or death caused in motor vehicular accidents. Both the schemes for compensation, one conceived under Section 166 and the other perceived by Section 163A are mutually exclusive and independent of each other and it is for a person who wants to claim compensation, to decide as to which procedure or mechanism he or she would opt for.

(76) ... when it is left with the claimant to choose the course