- (1.) OM Prakash and B. K. Sharma, JJ. Heard learned Counsel for appellants.
(2.) THIS is a First appeal from order against the impugned award dated 20-9-96, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah. On 19-6-1990, when the deceased sitting on the pillion of a scooter was going he was hit by a Tractor No. U. P. T. 6222. The deceased sustained serious injuries and later the succumbed to those injuries. The tractor was seized by the police. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 28 years, and he was in employment as a vaccinator having monthly salary of Rs. 1235, the Claims Tribunal after deducting 1/3 took monthly dependency at Rs. 800 that is Rs. 9, 600 yearly. Applying the multiplier 16 to the multiplicand of Rs. 9, 600 the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs. 1, 17, 600, which the appellants were held liable to pay.
(3.) THE submission of Counsel for the appellants before us is that an FIR was lodged but in the FIR, number of the truck was not specified. THE omission of the number being made in the FIR in quite in significant, as the truck was seized by the police and as this not the case of the appel lant that the tractor was not seized from the spot at the time of accident but from some other place and after a few days. THE facts that the tractor was seized by the police lends supports to the view of the Claims Tribunal that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver. So far as determina tion of compensation is concerned, we find that multiplier 16 applied by the Claims Tribunal, was on a lower side. THE accident took place on 19-6-90 and there fore, the second schedule, inserted by the Act 54 of 1994 w. e. f. 14-11-94, is not strict ly applicable to the facts of the case, but for determining the proper compensation, the guideline as provided in the second schedule with regard to the multiplier, can be pressed into service, as that does not run counter to any other provision of the statute. For the reasons, we do not see any patent illegality in the impugned award and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed. .;