R. BASANT, J.

1. (i) How is the amount payable in the case of death under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act' hereafter) to be ascertained?

(ii) Are the Tribunals to employ the multiplier- multiplicand method to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable in the case of death under the Second Schedule also?

(iii) For what purpose is the "multiplier" furnished in the chart/table in the Second Schedule?

(iv) Even in a claim under Section 163A are the claimants/legal heirs bound to prove the extent of dependency and loss?

(v)Is negligence or contributory negligence relevant in a claim under Section 163A?

(vi)Can the Schedule to 163A be ignored or disregarded while ascertaining quantum of compensation under Section 163A?

(vii) Can the quantum of compensation payable in the case of death be ascertained independently without resort to the Second Schedule in a claim under Section 163A?

2. These very fundamental doubts/questions seem to disturb and vex Tribunals in the State. In matters coming up before us for admission and hearing in this jurisdiction we are able to perceive gross and chaotic confusion in the minds of tribunals and we are hence persuaded to consider the questions in detail to afford guidelines for the Tribunals.

3. These appeals are preferred by the authorised insurer, who has suffered directions under a common award under Section 163A of the Act to pay an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- each to the common claimant. The challenge of the appellant/insurer is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded. The respondent/claimant, an elderly person, aged about 74 years, has preferred Cross Objections. In the Cross Objections, he contends that the entire claim of Rs. 2 lakhs must have been awarded by the Tribunal in both cases as compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. A brief reference to the vitally relevant facts may be useful. A couple and their 2 minor children were travelling in a car. The husband was driving the car.The other 3 were passengers. Another vehicle insured by the appellant herein/authorised insurer was coming in the opposite direction. There was a head on collision between the two vehicles resulting in the sustaining of injuries by all the 4 passengers in the car. Three of them - the husband and two minor children, succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The wife suffered injuries, but she survived for a short period of time and succumbed to such injuries later.

5. The claimant, in this case, has filed applications under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of his daughter and his grand child. An amount of Rs. 2 lakhs each was claimed. The claims in respect of one grand child and its father, who also had died in the accident were not filed by the claimant herein We are not posted with the details of such claims if any by either side. There is a suggestion at the bar that claims in respect of the husband and one child have been staked by the paternal grandfather.

6. We are not adverting to the other unnecessary details as it is very clear now that the claimants are pressing the claim for compensation only against the owner and the insurer of the lorry which had collided with the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling.

7. While the learned counsel for the common appellant contends that in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act also, the precise loss suffered by the claimant has to be established, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said requirement under Section 166 of the M.V Act cannot be blindly imported while deciding a claim under Section 163A of the M.V Act. The learned counsel for the appellant repeats the oft repeated contention that a claim for compensation for death in a motor accident under Section 163A must be computed employing the multiplier-multiplicand method and not by ascertaining the relevant figure in the table/chart given under clause 1 of the Second Schedule of the M.V Ac