RAJAN Vs. BIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apparent conflict between two decisions, rendered by co-equal Benches, in respect of the award of compensation under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act"), is the cause of these references. In Joseph Vs. Giji Varghese (2009 (4) KLT 199) a Division Bench of this Court took a view that in a case, where the claimants are not dependents, no amount can be awarded taking note of the multiplier based on age of the deceased or on age of the claimant as provided under structured formula in Second Schedule under Sec. 163A of the Act. Another Division Bench in Kadeeja Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (2013 (4) KLT 683) expressed a view that dependency is not relevant in a claim for compensation under Sec. 163A of the Act and the Tribunal need not go into the question as to selection of the multiplier.

(2.) We heard Sri. T.N. Manoj and Sri. A.R. George, learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties.

(3.) Sec. 163A of the Act falls under Chapter XI dealing with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. The provision reads as follows: