Basant, J.

The insurer is the appellant. The insurer is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation paid to the claimants. The claimants are the father, mother and brother of a child aged about 4 years. The Tribunal had awarded a total amount of Rs.1,50,000 as compensation. It is submitted at the bar that the requisite leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the insurer by the Tribunal.

2. The quantification of the compensation payable for the loss suffered by the parents of a minor child has been one of the vexing problems of law. There are so many imponderables. In the instant case the child was aged about 4 years. It is too early an age to ascertain the potentials of the child. It is too early to assess the capabilities, special skills etc. of the child. How then is the compensation to be assessed? The multiplier method is not a very safe one in such a case, it is trite. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Ajith (2002(3)KLT 330) in support of the proposition that the multiplier method is not a safe method and that only a global amount is payable.

3. The decision reported in 2002(3)KLT330 may not be of any great help and assistance in resolving the challenge raised in this appeal. The death in the said case occurred on 3.2.1992 - before the 1994 amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act came into force. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not there on the statute book when the accident in 2002(3)KLT 330 occurred. We are of opinion that there definitely has been a change in law after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act in 1994 by which Section 163A was brought into the statute book. Of course this is not a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This claim is under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But it is now trite that the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act can be reckoned as a safe guide while attempting to compute compensation payable even under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the decision reported in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v.Trilok Chandra (1996(2)KLT 218(SC)), the Supreme Court notwithstanding the fact that the accident in that case had taken place on 1.8.1977 - long prior to the 1994 amendment, indicated that Section 163A may safely be used as a guide for the purpose of ascertainment of the quantum of compensation even in a claim under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. At the outset we must note that the burden under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act on a claimant is much less than on a claimant under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No negligence need be proved in a claim under Section 163A. The objects and reasons of the Amendment Act clearly reveal a yearning to avoid time consuming disputes and to make available compensation expeditiously as per a ready reckoner structured fromala by a rough and ready method. This was the abvious motivation. We are of opinion that in respect of a post amendment accident even when the claim is raised under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the courts are obliged to bear in mind the quantum of compensation which the claimant would have received under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. We would and need only say that normally the quantum of compensation awarded under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act can never be lesser than the amount payable under the structured formala under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Merely because the claimant had wrongly quoted the Section as 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and had not specifically claimed under Section 163A, it would be unjust, unreasonable and improper to deny to the claimant the minimum compensation which would have been payable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. A tribunal which has imbibed the compassion of the statute cannot perhaps resort to such a course.

5. In this view of the matter we hold that even in a claim under Section 166/168 of