NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MUNEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer is the appellant. The insurer is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation paid to the claimants. The claimants are the father, mother and brother of a child aged about 4 years. The Tribunal had awarded a total amount of Rs.1,50,000 as compensation. It is submitted at the bar that the requisite leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the insurer by the Tribunal.

(2.) The quantification of the compensation payable for the loss suffered by the parents of a minor child has been one of the vexing problems of law. There are so many imponderables. In the instant case the child was aged about 4 years. It is too early an age to ascertain the potentials of the child. It is too early to assess the capabilities, special skills etc. of the child. How then is the compensation to be assessed? The multiplier method is not a very safe one in such a case, it is trite. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Ajith (2002(3)KLT 330) in support of the proposition that the multiplier method is not a safe method and that only a global amount is payable.

(3.) The decision reported in 2002(3)KLT330 may not be of any great help and assistance in resolving the challenge raised in this appeal. The death in the said case occurred on 3.2.1992 before the 1994 amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act came into force. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not there on the statute book when the accident in 2002(3)KLT 330 occurred. We are of opinion that there definitely has been a change in law after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act in 1994 by which Section 163A was brought into the statute book. Of course this is not a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This claim is under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But it is now trite that the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act can be reckoned as a safe guide while attempting to compute compensation payable even under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the decision reported in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v.Trilok Chandra (1996(2)KLT 218(SC)), the Supreme Court notwithstanding the fact that the accident in that case had taken place on 1.8.1977 long prior to the 1994 amendment, indicated that Section 163A may safely be used as a guide for the purpose of ascertainment of the quantum of compensation even in a claim under Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.