The main legal point established in the judgment is that the award passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is final, and the provisions of Sections 163-A and 166 provide for two different modes of determining compensation, which cannot be simultaneously invoked by the claimants.

R.M. Lodha, J.-The Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 110.2000 has referred the following questions for consideration and determination by the Larger Bench:

1. Whether the award passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being passed after detailed evidence as to income, age and disability for compensation to be awarded under structured formula basis is in exclusion to the award passed under Section 166 on negligence basis of a Court of law?

2. Whether an issue which has already been disposed of can be reopened for the purpose of proceeding under Section 166?

3. Whether under Sections 163-A and 166, two modes for determining the compensation one on fixed formula basis and the other on assumption basis to be determined by the Tribunal, the two proceedings are in exclusion of each other and proceeding under Section 163-A cannot be construed to be an interim compensation as under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

4. Whether the Judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Nathu Ram, 1999 WLC (Raj) UC 185, in the case to be reconsidered wherein the award passed under Section 163 has been held to be an interim award.

2. The aforesaid questions arise from the facts which may briefly be noticed immediately here-in-after.

3. On 28.07.1999 at about 12.30 p.m., a seven year old child-Gajanand Sharma was returning home from the school. At that time, one car bearing registration No. RJ-27-C-8866 coming from Delhi dashed against him and as a result of the accident, the child sustained grave injuries and he died that very night.

4. The parents applied for compensation under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Motor Vehicles Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur claiming compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/-. The owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer were impleaded as non-applicants and it was alleged that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver.

5. The owner did not respond despite service. The insurer resisted the claim on diverse grounds available to them in law.

.6. On the basis of the claim petition and the reply by the insurer, the Tribunal framed the following issues, namely :-

.(i) Whether the death of Gajanand Sharma occurred on 28.07.1999 due to the accident caused by the vehicle RJ-27-C-8866?

.(ii) Whether the Non-applicant No. 1 was the registered owner of the concerned vehicle and the said

vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No. 2?

(iii) What was the age of Gajanand Sharma at the time of his death?

.(iv) What was the income of the deceased at the time of his death?

.(v) Relief ?

7. After framing the issues, the Tribunal proceeded with the determination of the compensation under Section 163-A by giving it the title of interim compensation. The Tribunal held that the death of the child-Gajanand Sharma occurred because of the accident caused by the vehicle RJ-27-C-8866. The age of the child at the time of death was found to be seven years. The Tribunal applied structured formula provided in Section Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act and by estimating the income of the child at Rs. 500/-

p.m. multiplied the same by multiplier of 15 and concluded that the claimants were entitled for compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses of the deceased child and an amount of Rs. 2,500/-towards loss of estate and, thus, in all granted under Section 163-A compensation of Rs. 94,500/-to the claimants. The Tribunal award interest @ 12% on the said amount on the dated of filing of the claim application until realisation.

8. The insurer challenged the said award by filing an appeal before this Court principally on the ground that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not contemplate interim award and, therefore, the award must be treated to be final award. Alternatively, the insurer prayed in the appeal that i