AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—The insurer is the Appellant. Claimants are a widow, aged 55 years and her son, aged 36 years. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,45,457/- against the claim for Rs. 4,75,000/-. The details are given in the tabular summary of compensation claimed and awarded appended to the award.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant was requested to explain the basis of the challenge that the Appellant wants to raise in this appeal. The short contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant/insurer is that instead of 5, the multiplier was reckoned as 9 by the Tribunal. The deceased was a person aged between 60-65 years and for such a person, as per the second schedule, the multiplier which is to be reckoned is only 5. Instead, the Tribunal had reckoned the multiplier as 9. This is the short contention raised.
The deceased had left behind his widow, aged 55 years. Going by the multiplier to be reckoned for a dependent aged 55 years, it is 9 or more going by General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, and the second schedule. The deceased was reckoned as aged 60 years. The Tribunal evidently went by the age shown in the postmortem certificate. The counsel contends that in the light of Ext.A7 driving licence which shows the date of birth to be 15.07.1944, the deceased on the date of the accident must have been reckoned as aged 62 years. In reckoning the multiplier at 9, instead of 5, the Tribunal erred. This in short is the contention raised.
We must alertly remind ourselves that we are called upon to invoke and exercise our jurisdiction in appeal. 9 was the multiplier to be taken, if the age of the dependent/wife were taken into consideration. Going by the age of the deceased, the multiplier can be taken as 9, 8, 7, 5 or 6 as per the various table adopted and as shown in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to agree that the said alleged inadequacy committed by the Tribunal in reckoning the multiplier at 9 is sufficient to warrant interference in appeal. The total compensation amount of Rs. 2,45,457/- awarded by the Tribunal does appear to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. The primary purpose of the exercise before the Tribunal is to award compensation which is reasonable, fair and just. Notwithstanding the inadequacy in the reckoning of the multiplier, we are satisfied that the primary purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is eminently served by the quantum of compensation awarded. The error committed in the reckoning of the multiplier does not persuade us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction.
This M.A.C.A is, in these circumstances, dismissed.