R. BASANT. J:

1. Can the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals award costs? What principles should apply in the matter of awarding costs? What procedure is to be followed by the tribunals in the matter of awarding costs? There is no general and accepted procedures followed by the tribunals in the State. Some direct payment of costs. Some direct payment of proportionate costs. Some direct payment of specified amount of costs. We perceive urgent necessity for issue of judicial guidelines in the matter in the absence of specific stipulations in the Statute or the Rules.

2. This appeal is preferred by the claimant who staked claim for compensation for the loss suffered by her as a result of the death of her husband who succumbed to injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 10/08/2008. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Respondents 4 and 5 are the father and mother of her deceased husband. They were arrayed as respondents obviously as the appellant and her parents-in-law could not agree to file a joint application for compensation.

3. By the impugned award, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant along with respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to a total amount of Rs.4,37,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Rs.2,500/- has been directed to be paid as costs. The direction for payment of compensation is not challenged either by the appellant or by respondents 4 and 5 or by the Insurance Company.

4. The tribunal, evidently in discharge of its obligation to ensure that just compensation is paid to those entitled to compensation, proceeded to issue the impugned direction that the compensation amount must be divided by the petitioner, her mother-in-law and father-in-law in the ratio of 2 : 1 : 1 . The challenge in this appeal by the appellant/wife is against the said direction. We must hasten to observe that the tribunal had alertly directed that Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of loss of consortium shall belong exclusively to the appellant and the remaining amount of compensation alone will have to be divided in the ratio 2 : 1 : 1 .

5. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the tribunal had awarded the amount of Rs.4,37,000/- as per the details given below:

1. Transport to hospital 1,500/-2. Damage to clothing 500/-3. Funeral expenses 3,000/-

4. Pain and sufferings to the victim. 10,000/-

5. loss of love and affection 10,000/-6. Loss of estate 5,000/-7. Loss of consortium 15,000/-

8. Loss of dependency(Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 14 x 2/3) 3,92,000/-

Total

4, 37, 000/-

6. The learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the entitlement of the parents-in-law of the appellant for a share in the entire remaining amount of compensation after deducting the amount awarded to the appellant under the head of loss of consortium. His short contention is that the ratio 2 : 1 : 1 is not fair and just considering the age of the parents-in-law of the appellant and the extent of their dependency. The appellant is a young woman aged 33 years at the time of the death of her husband. Respondents 4 and 5 are aged 67 and 63 years respectively as found by the tribunal. The younger of the parents would hence be entitled to get only 7 reckoned as the multiplier. The wife in turn is entitled for 14 as the multiplier. The learned counsel for the appellant, in these circumstances, points out that for ½ of the compensation for loss of dependency, the parents can have no claim at all as the multiplier applicable to them is 7 years and the multiplier adopted by the tribunal is 14 years. For the 7 year multiplier applicable to the parents-in-law, the amount is to be shared by them along with the appellant. When these realities are taken into account, the direction to apportion the entire amount in the ratio 2 : 1 : 1 is not justified, contends the counsel. We take note of the advanced age of respondents 4 and 5. Realistically period of depende