Claimants can validly convert claims between Sections 166 and 163A and the assessment of compensation for fatal accidents must adhere to the structured formula in the Second Schedule without employing the multiplier method.

JUDGMENT

BASANT, J.

This appeal comes up for admission now. The respondents/claimants are served. The insurer is the appellant. Compensation is claimed by the claimants for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their son, a young person, aged about 14 years. Father and mother of the deceased are the claimants. The claim was initially staked under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The deceased was a passenger in a taxi jeep. The appellant is the insurer in respect of that vehicle. The claim was staked against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling as also the driver and owner of another vehicle which was also involved in the accident.

2. As stated earlier, the claim was initially lodged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . In the course of the proceedings – evidently after realising that the other vehicle involved in the accident was not covered by a valid policy of insurance, the claimants prayed that driver and owner of the other vehicle may be deleted from the party array. They were accordingly deleted. A request was made that the claim may be reckoned as one under Section 163 A of the . That request was allowed by the Tribunal and the claim was considered as one under Section 163 A of the . The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,29,500/- as per the details shown below:

i) Compensation for fatal accident (under entry 1 of second schedule)

(15,000 X 15) : Rs.2,25,000.00 ii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 iii) Loss of estate : Rs. 2,500.00 ----------------------

Total : Rs.2,29,500.00 =========

3. The insurer challenges the award. It is first of all contended that alteration of a claim from Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to Section 163 A of the and the deletion of the driver and owner of the other vehicle from the party array was ill conceived. The claimants cannot be assumed to have such a discretion to delete the owner and driver of the other vehicle from the array of parties. Merely because the other vehicle had not been insured, the appellant herein should not have been mulcted with the entire liability under Section 163 A of the , it is urged.

4. The right of the claimant to request that his claim lodged initially under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act may be converted and treated as one under Section 163 A of the cannot possibly be doubted. If there be any doubt on that aspect, the last trace of such doubt must be held to have been set at rest by the recent decision of the Supreme Court inOriental Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi (SC) [2011 (1) KLT 617 (SC)]. That decision is authority for the proposition that until an award is passed either under or under Section 163 A of the , the claimant has the right to request that his claim may be considered under either of the two Sections. That decision refers to the earlier decision inDeepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2004 (2) KLT 395 SC]. It is clarified thatDeepal Girishbhai Soni does not fetter the option of the claimant who chooses to press the claim either under or under Section 163 A of the if the claim under the other section has not been decided and ordered earlier.

5. Therefore it is crystal clear that the exercise of option by the claimants to reckon their claim as one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is absolutely justified. That conversion of the claim cannot possibly be faulted.

6. The next question is whether in a claim under Section

163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , the driver, owner and insurer (if any) of the other vehicle involved in the accident are necessary parties and whether the non impleadment of such driver, owner and insurer would adversely affect the claim under Section 163A against the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved. There is nothing in to show that when two vehicles are involved, the claim must be staked against the owner and insurer of both vehi