- (1.) COUNSEL appearing for both sides 'fairly submitted that looking to the age of the deceased, the principle of multiplier applied by the trial court is correct, which is 16. Likewise, the salary updated by the trial court at Rs. 3500/ - per month is also correct and therefore, the total compensation ought to have been decided on the basis of these two factors, especially looking to Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2.) LOOKING to the note of the Second Schedule, it appears that the amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claim shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim could have incurred towards maintenance by himself having been alive. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro and out of total compensation calculated in paragraph -29, which is at Rs.6,72,000/ -, this amount ought to have been reduced. This is an error on the face of the record. This 1/3rd amount ought to have been deducted from total compensation of Rs.6,72,000/ -. Therefore, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro should have awarded compensation of Rs. 4,48,000/ -, instead of Rs. 6,72,000/ - and rest of the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. Counsel appearing for the claimant without filing any appeal against the impugned award raised a contention that still there is some error in Paragraph -30 of the award for grant of interest from the date of 20th July, 2007. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this interest ought to have been awarded from the date of filing of application, but, it is fairly submitted by the counsel for the respondent that they have not challenged this part of the award.
(3.) IN view of this submission, only modification made by this Court in the award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro is that instead of Rs.6,72,000/ -, compeJ1sation will now be at Rs.4,48,000/ - and rest of the compensation and interest granted by the impugned award is upheld by this Court.;