Abdul Rehim, J.

1. The appellant herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. The appellant’s brother Pappachan alias Thomas sustained fatal injuries when a Jeep knocked down him on the public road, on 2.11.1995. The deceased succumbed to the injuries after 33 years of the accident. The deceased was an unmarried man. Others sibling of the deceased were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8 before the Tribunal. According to the appellant/claimant the deceased was an Agriculturist earning monthly income of Rs. 2500/-. The deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal found that neither the claimant nor the other sibling are dependents of the deceased, and hence they are not entitled for any compensation under the head of dependency. The Tribunal found that the appellant/claimant as well as respondent 4 to 8 are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.26,500/-. But considering the provisions under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded. The claimant as well as respondents 4 to 8 were allowed equal right over the amount of compensation.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent insurance company. The appellant contended that the deceased was unmarried and having no issues, and that the deceased was living along with the appellant. According to learned counsel for the appellant, even when a claim is raised under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal is obliged to bear in mind the quantum of compensation which the claimant would have received under Section 163A and the compensation awarded under Section 166 can never be lesser than what is payable under the structured formula in Schedule II under Section 163A of the Act. In support of the above contention counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Muneer (2003(1) KLT 137). According to learned counsel for the appellant the compensation provided under second schedule in Section 163A of the Act an be taken as a guideline while determining compensation under Section 166 also, and therefore the compensation for dependency ought to have been calculated based on the second schedule, is the contention. He had also placed reliance on the decision in Supe Dei (Smt) and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another ((2009) 4 SCC 513).

3. In the case at hand the deceased was an unmarried Agriculturist aged 54 years. Sibling of the deceased are living separately along with their families. The deceased was living along with the appellant/claimant. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that neither the appellant nor respondents 4 to 8 are dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore it is an admitted fact that the claimants are not dependents on the deceased. The question to be considered in such a situation is as to whether the Tribunal is bound to give minimum compensation payable under the structured formula.

4. Before entering on any finding on the question as to whether the Tribunals are bound to award minimum compensation as provided under the structured formula in claims under Section 166, it is necessary to examine whether the claimant and respondents 4 to 8 in this case would have been eligible for the total amount of compensation as provided under the second schedule, if the claim was under section 163A. We notice that in a number of cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even in claims under Section 163A the structured formula under the schedule need be treated only as a guideline. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, ((1996) 4 SCC 362) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had pointed out in detail about the short comings in the schedule and held that the schedule can only be used as a guide. It was also held that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rame