- (1.) SATISH Chandra, J. This is first appeal filed by the Appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 165/2000 where a compensation of Rs. 3,88,500/- was awarded along with interest at the @ of 6% p.a. in favour of the claimants-respondents.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 22.02.2000 at about 7.00 p.m., deceased Jitendra Kumar Yadav was going in a tractor trolley towards his house. A Vikram Tempo No. U.P. 32-T-3797 was following the tractor trolley, whose driver was driving the tempo rashly and negligently and hit the tractor trolley, virtually the tempo entered into the trolley. The same resulted into the death of Jitendra Kumar Yadav, who was aged about 21 years. The tempo driver Anil Kayshap has lodged first information report in Police Station Gosaiganj, Lucknow at about 13.10 on 23.02.2000. A claim petition was filed before the Tribunal who found that the tempo was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Finally, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,88,500/- Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has not disputed the accident. He has also accepted that Vikram Tempo was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. He only disputed the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. He submits that the multiplier of 16 was wrongly applied by the Tribunal by considering the age of the deceased, who was aged about 21 years old and unmarried. Being unmarried, his age cannot be taken into consideration for determination of compensation.
(3.) LEARNED counsel further submits that on the date of accident, the age of the mother of the deceased was about 41 years and the father was about 43 years old, who are the claimants, so the age of the parents will have to be taken into consideration for determination of the multiplier. For this purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Chand Jain and another vs. Permanand and ors., reported in 2003 (1) T.A.C. 490 S.C., where the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in the case of death of unmarried man, father and mother's age will have to be considered for determination of the multiplier. According to him in the instant case, the multiplier of 15 will have to be applied by looking the age of the mother of the deceased, who was about 41 years.;