- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh and Satish Chandra, JJ. Heard Mr. Mukund Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
(2.) PRESENT appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in short, Act, against the impugned award dated 1. 5. 2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/additional District Judge (Fast Track), Court No. 32, Barabanki in Motor Accident Claim No. 320 of 2005. Controversy involved in the present appeal relates to an accident taken place on 23. 12. 2003 from Motorcycle No. U. P.-41c-4645 at Deva-Barabanki Road near village Palta. The claimant Smt. Manju while approaching the Tribunal advanced her claim with the allegation that the motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently and on account of accident taken place, Shri Anoop Singh (deceased) succumbed to the injuries on 4. 1. 2004. The factum of accident was informed to the police station concerned and later on, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,96,228 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The claimant advanced her case with the submission that the monthly income of the deceased Anoop Singh was Rs. 5,000, having a betel shop and business of milk. Learned Tribunal after permitting the parties to adduce evidence arrived at a conclusion that the claimant has failed to establish the monthly income to the tune of Rs. 5,000 per month and accordingly, in view of the statutory provisions contained in Section 163a of the Act inferred that the notional income of the deceased would be Rs. 15,000 per year. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 on the basis of the age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has further granted Rs. 2,000 as cremation expenses and Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,74,500. While assailing the impugned order, the solitary argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not applied multiplier correctly keeping in view the actual age of the deceased. It has been submitted that the multiplier should have been used by the Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased or the claimant, whichever is higher. It has been further submitted that the age of the claimant was 48 years at the time of accident.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has relied upon a case in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 249 : 2006 (4) AWC 3170 : 2006 (3) ACCD 1522 (SC ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has rightly used the multiplier of 17 treating the age of the deceased as 25 years. He also submits that multiplier provided under Schedule II of the Act is simply a guideline and the Tribunal has got power to award compensation keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It has also been submitted that the application under Section 170 of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal and the order of rejection was never impugned by the appellant, hence it attained finality. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the appeal is not maintainable in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant is not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a case in R. Mannakatti and another v. M, Subramanian and another, 2006 (2) TAG 515 : 2006 (3) ACCD 1472 (SC ).;