ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The victim was an employee of West Bengal State Electricity Board. He died in accident. His son got compassionate appointment, as we find from the evidence. The Tribunal, while calculating the compensation, considered the net salary taking into account the deduction of provident fund and reimbursement of loan amount. In our view, such exercise was erroneous.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the claimants that the Tribunal erred in not taking into account the future prospect. The Tribunal erred in applying the correct multiplier. According to the claimants, the appropriate multiplier should be 13 considering the age of the victim, whereas the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10.
(3.) Mr. Kartick Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, on the other hand submits that once the victim's son got compassionate appointment, the appellants were not entitled to insist on application of the schedule applicable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, since the instant application was made under Section 166 of the said Act.;