Johny vs Ajesh @ Ali, Thomas K.T., Partner, Paragon Rubber Industries, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Vijayan

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimants in a claim u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act have preferred this appeal complaining that they were not awarded eligible compensation as per the II schedule. Having heard the submissions of Sri. Mathew Skaria learned counsel for the appellants and those of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, we are of the view that there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal should have adopted Rs. 2,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased who was a workshop employee. But, at the same time we find force in the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier which is applicable to the deceased. The proper multiplier to be adopted and applied was that of the parents. We find that of the parents mother was the junior and was aged only 41 years. According to us, proper multiplier adopted is the multiplier applicable to persons in the age group of the mother which is 14. When dependency compensation is redetermined on the basis of the multiplicand revised by us and the proper multiplier as stated above, it will be seen that the same will stand enhanced by Rs. 32,000/-.

As for the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under other heads, we find that there is no infirmity about the award of the learned Tribunal. The result, therefore, is that the appeal stands allowed and the appellants awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The impugned award shall stand modified to the above extent. This additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a from the date of the application till the date of realisation.