The correct application of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, specifically Section 166, Section 163A, and Section 140, is crucial in determining the appropriate compensation amount in motor vehicle accident cases.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This appeal is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") against the award, dated 27.06.03, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge No. 2 and Member MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati, granting, in favour of the appellant, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000.00, including the amount of non-fault liability, with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of passing of the award till realisation of the amount so awarded, the awarded amount being recoverable from the insurer, namely, M/s united India Insurance Company Ltd.

2. The material facts and various stages, which led to the present appeal, may be summarised as follows :-

(i) The claimant/appellant made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of her unmarried son, Gautam Prasad Sonari, a handiman of truck, who used to earn Rs. 2,500 P.M. as salary, the case of the claimant being that on 10.01.2001, when the said deceased was travelling in the said truck toward Karimganj from Guwahati, the truck met with an accident on the National Highway at Bhandar, District Karimganj. The deceased having breathed his last at the very spot of the accident, the claimant sought for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation.

(ii) The respondent No. 2 herein, who is the registered owner of the said truck, filed his written statement, wherein he admitted the said accident, the death of the said deceased and the fact that the said deceased was employed as had been mentioned by the claimant. The respondent No. 2, however, claimed that the truck, in question, was insured with the respondent No. 1, namely, M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. The respondent No. 1 too coested the claim on various ground.

(iii) After recording the evidence adduced by the claimant and as no evidence was adduced by the respondents, the learned Tribunal held that though the deceased was claimed to have been earning Rs. 2,500 P.M., the fact remains that as per the admission of the claimant herself, she used to receive Rs. 1,000 per month from her said son. As the said deceased was unmarried and aged about 22 years and as the age of the claimant was 50 years, the appropriate multiplier, according to the learned Tribunal, would be 10. Thus, using 10 as the multiplier, the learned Tribunal calculated the compensation amount to the tune of Rs, 1,20,000. To the compensation amount, so determined, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was added by the learned Tribunal as expenses for carrying the dead body of the said deceased to Guwahati and also for performing e the religious rites. The learned Tribunal accordingly determined that the claimant was entitled to receive, as compensation, an amount of Rs. 1,30,000 with interest at the rate and from the date as already indicated hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

3. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned award. I have heard Mr. P.D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. l.

4. Presenting the appeal on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel, has submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in law in using the multiplier as 10, though the multiplier used ought to have been as much as 17 in terms of the Second Schedule, prepared under Section 163A of the said Act. Mr. Gogoi has placed reliance, in support of his submission, on Kaderkunju and Anr. v. Maheswaran Pada Nair and Ors., reported in. To further strengthen his submission, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that since annual income of the deceased was below Rs. 40,000 and no issue with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle was framed, the learned Tribunal dealt with the matter as if it was a proceeding under Section 163A and having so proceeded, the learned Tribunal ought to have used 17 as the multiplier, which would have been cons