1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.973 OF 1996 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Appellant versus Maruti Shankar Bankhile and others Respondents Ranjan Tripathi i/by S.S.Vidyarthi for appellant. G.S.Hegde a/w C.M.Lokesh for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th March 2010 JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has challenged an award made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In case of a minor whose age was approximately 13 years at the time of death, the compensation of Rs. 2,04,500/- has been granted. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and others (1996- ACJ-831). He submitted that in view of the said decision, the age of 2 the parents ought to have been taken into consideration while fixing the compensation amount. He placed reliance on what is held by the Apex court in paragraph 18 of the judgment and he submitted that the ready reckoner under section 163-A will have to be taken only as a guideline. 3. I have considered the submissions. The claim petition has been filed under section 163-A of the said Act. The Apex Court in the case of U.P.State Road transport Corpn. and others (supra) was dealing with a case where the accident had occurred in the year 1972. The apex court was not dealing with a claim petition under section 163-A of the said Act. In paragraph 18 of the said decision the apex court has observed thus :- "18. ... ... To put it briefly, the Table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the Tribunals nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to emphasis is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and Tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the 3 background of the multiplier system in Davites' case (supra)." 4. The observations are in the context of Tribunals dealing with claim petitions under section 166 of the said Act adopting formula under section 166-A of the said Act. The law laid down by the apex court is that while dealing with petition under section 166 of the said Act, the structured formula under section 163-A will act only as a guideline. 5. The said decision has no application in the present case as the claim petition has been specifically filed under section 163-A of the said Act. Clause (6) of the second schedule provides that notional income of non earning person has to be taken at Rs.15,000/- p.a.. For a deceased whose age is up to 15 years and whose annual income is Rs.12,000/-, the compensation payable is Rs.2,40,000/- and the compensation payable in case of a deceased whose annual income is Rs.18,000/- is Rs.3,60,000/-. Thus taking average of Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs.3,60,000/-, the compensation payable in respect of deceased who was earning Rs.15,000/- per annum will be Rs3,00,000/-. As per the note appended to clause (1) of the second schedule, the compensation will have to be reduced by one third. As per clause (3), sub clause (i) funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- will have to be awarded. As per sub clause 3 of clause 3, loss of estate of Rs. 4 2,500/- will have to be awarded. Hence, the compensation payable under the structured formula is rightly held by the Tribunal to be Rs. 2,04,900/-. No fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. If any amount deposited by the appellant is pending in this Court, the same shall be transferred to the concerned tribunal. The Tribunal will pass appropriate orders regarding withdrawal or refund after hearing the parties. (A.S.OKA, J.)