Claims under Sections 163A and 166 of the MV Act are distinct and cannot be pursued simultaneously; compensation can be awarded under Section 166 without reference to Section 163A's structured formula.

J U D G M E N T

Antony Dominic, J.

The parents, brother and sisters of late Benny Joseph, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 17.05.1995 at about 6.45 p.m., filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming Rs.5 lakhs. The accident occurred when a bus, bearing Registration No. KL 7E 6417 driven by the 2nd respondent in which the deceased, aged 27 years, was a passenger, overturned and he was thrown out, causing injuries to which he succumbed on the spot itself. It was alleged that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The insurance company contested the case admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the driver. It was also contended that the claim was exorbitant and without any basis. Both sides did not adduce any oral evidence but Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. By Award dated 30th April 2003, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- to be deposited by the 3rd respondent insurance company.

2. The compensation for loss of dependency awarded is Rs.1,28,000/-. It has been quantified, fixing Rs.16,000/- as the anuual dependency and applying 8 as the multiplies, based on the age of the parents. In addition to this for pain and suffering, for loss of love and affection to the parents, towards funeral expenses and transportation, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively have been awarded. Although in the award the total compensation award is stated to be Rs.1,31,000/-, on a correct quantification, the amount is Rs.1,41,000/-.

3. The main contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants are two fold. He would contend that although the petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’ for short), the quantum of compensation awarded can never be lesser than the amount payable as per the structured formula under Section 163A of the Act. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting 8 as the multiplier, based on the age of the parents of the deceased.

4. Elaborating the first contention, the counsel for the appellants heartily relied on a Division Bench judgment this Court in the case ofNational Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Muneer ( 2003 (1) KLT 137 ). On the other hand, the counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the scheme of Sections 166 and 163A are independent and different and that a claimant having chosen to prefer and contest a claim filed under Section

166 and after courting an award, cannot thereafter claim that compensation ought to have been awarded under Section 163A of the Act. Counsel relied on the judgments of in the cases of Jacob Vs. Mohammed ( 2004 (1) KLT 893 ), Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in 2004 (2) KLT 395, Sherifa Beevi Vs. Komu (2006 (4) KLT 857) & National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Jabbar (2007 (1) KLT 331). According to the counsel for the insurance company, adoption of multiplier based on the age of parents is a well known principle and has been judicially recognized in several judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. He has relied on the judgments in the case ofU.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra reported in 1996 (2) KLT 218, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajapriya reported in 2005 (2) KLT 848(SC), Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors., reported in 2006 (3) SCC 242, New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Satender reported in 2006 (4) KLT 974 & New India Assurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Vappu reported in

2007 (1) KLT 351.

4. The first issue that is required to be resolved is the claim of the appellants for compensation under Section 163A of the Act, despite having filed the petition under Section 166 thereof.

5. Section 163A occurring in Chapter 11 of the Act is extracted below for reference:

“Section 163-A. Special provision as to payment of compensation on