AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Verma and Seth, JJ.—Mr. S. Patwa, the learned counsel for appellants.
None for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sudhir S. Dandwate, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. They are heard on M (C) P No. 2313 of 2002 made by appellants praying for condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 5 days. For the reasons recorded in the said application, we are of the considered opinion that the delay has properly been explained. Thus, the delay stands hereby condoned.
Heard on I.A. No. 4403 of 2002, made by appellants for deleting the name of appellant No. 4 Ganga Bai on account of her death. It has also been mentioned that all her other legal representatives are already on the record. Application perused and considered. The same is hereby allowed. Necessary deletion be made during the course of the day.
They are also heard on I.A. No. 653 of 2003 made by appellants for dispensing with service of notice on respondent No. 1, who was ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. Application perused and considered. The same is hereby allowed. No notice is required to be sent.
All interlocutory applications stand closed. With consent arguments heard on merits. For the death of a 30 years old person, working as Assistant Teacher, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,61,624 to the appellants-claimants together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 19.12.2000. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that multiplier of 13 has wrongly been applied. According to him since the age of the de-ceased was 30 years, the proper multiplier should have been 18 as per Second Schedule, appended to Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
After having heard learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the record we are of the opinion that dependency of the claimants has properly been assessed at Rs. 18,048 per annum as the same had been worked out on the basis of pay certificate of the deceased. But the proper multiplier should be 18. Thus, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 3,24,864. To this a further amount of Rs. 27,000 needs to be added, which has also been awarded by the Tribunal towards various other heads. Thus, total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 3,51,864. The difference in amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 19.12.2000.
Appeal thus stands allowed to the extent indicated above with costs throughout. Counsel''s fee Rs. 1,000, if certified.